Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/December 2010

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 Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [1].

---

List of Survivor contestants

Notified: Scorpion0422, Plastikspork, Gogo Dodo

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I found a few issues with current criteria. I believe these can be fixed relatively quickly...

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

*Don't start with "This is a list..." Fixed. Sole Survivor is capitalised, is this a quote? What is it? Suggest "Sole Survivor". Fixed. You say in the lead there's been 21 seasons, but I find it difficult to see, say, who was in season 3. The list default sorts to seasons. But, I went through and made it that it is now sortable by season order rather than season name. No, I still can't see that Australian Outback was season 2 (if, indeed, it was). I suggest season number vs location is explained or added somewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean, but all of the Survivor seasons are better known by their location/name than their season number. It isn't like The Amazing Race (U.S. TV series) or Big Brother (U.S.) which are known by the season number. I suppose we could add in a lookup table like Survivor (U.S. TV series) has, but it might be rather ugly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) " one of the most popular castaways" any proof of that? Fixed. Colour alone is used to designate repeat contestants, against WP:ACCESS. Fixed. Key appears to be broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed by Nergaal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Captions need work per MOS. Could you be a little more specific? Using periods only for complete sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Names should sort by surname using the {{sortname}} template. I think its best not to. Most of these people are best known by their first names. So, to most readers, being able to sort by last name would mean absolutely nothing. Since the table is sortable, you need to repeat the wikilink for each row each time. (In particular, the Season column). Done. Mixture of date formats in the references is against WP:MOS. Fixed. No ref for note A. Why does it need a reference? The age information is based on the general refs, and they only include that persons age when the show was filmed. Refs 3, 5 and 6 lack publishing information. Fixed earlier. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) CBS pages take an eternity to load and don't appear to have the title given here. Not much can be done about the load time. Originally, the contestant lists were different, with the given titles. But, the site was changed and now those pages don't really have titles. So, the old ones work to differentiate them. The list was missing one, fixed that. The HTML source for the resulting links all have the same TITLE tag: "Cast Bios for the CBS Primetime Reality TV Show "Survivor" - CBS.com", so I think the existing title is reasonable instead of having 21 references with the same title. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC) "Fairview, NC" is a dab. Fixed. The "200x in television" links all head to dab pages. There must be a problem with the template. No, just a problem with the call. Fixed. Courcelles 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion0422 23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) What makes asapblog or realitytvworld WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I have switched to a TV Guide ref, and fixed the captions. Is there anything I missed? -- Scorpion0422 20:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs renaming to List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) contestants or just List of Survivor (U.S.) contestants similar to main article which would distinguish it from contestents on Survivor (UK TV series). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep and thank you for making the suggested changes in a friendly and professional manner. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, I don't see a problem with it right now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quick question – What makes HitFix (reference 1) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep it appears to still pass the criteria. Nergaal (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [2].

---

Rihanna discography

Notified: JohnFromPinckney, WikiProject Discographies, Ericorbit

I am nominating this for featured list removal because...

... well, I was quite proud of getting this to FL standards 18 months ago. Now it's something I don't quite want to put my name to. I must admit, that my involvement in the article since it was promoted has not been great, but I'm always wary of being too involved in my promotions and try not to WP:OWN them.

What do I think is wrong? Well, it's gone through a lot of changes since its promotion diff and its current dif: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna_discography&diff=394796874&oldid=273946162 (be aware, this URL may be a strain on some computers). Not that an article should sit stagnant, but I think many of these changes have neither benefitted the article nor kept it inline with the FL criteria. To top it all off is the reformatting per WP:DISCOGSTYLE and ACCESS that nobody has really explained. This was the main reason I wanted to nominate this, but looking deeper I've found plenty of other issues with it, too:

FL?#1 and #2 Prose and Lede (I'll bunch these together because it's practically the same):

* The prose no longer leans towards a professional standard. * There are frequent sentences wedged in via parentheses "It spawned the number one singles "SOS" (number one in three countries) and "Unfaithful" (number one in two countries)" is a stand-out example. * Sentences such as "Her debut album Music of the Sun had distinct Caribbean reggae rhythms" indicate either that the album has been deleted from the catalog and all copies in the world destroyed, or that somehow the recorded music has miraculously changed its style. * Take a deep breath: "It was certified multi-platinum in several countries following a number of re-releases and seven singles including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella" which became the longest sitting number-one single on the UK Singles Chart of the 21st century (at that time)." -- I can't say much about this until I get my puff back, but when did songs get arses to sit on? * "Other singles included the top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" and "Hate That I Love You" with Ne-Yo." -- implies all three singles featured Ne-Yo * "Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded produced three more singles including two number-one singles, "Take a Bow" and "Disturbia", and the top-twenty single "Rehab"." -- Huh? Who? What? I fail to see how this sentence is an improvement on the original "In 2008, Good Girl Gone Bad was re-released and retitled Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded. It featured three new songs, "Take a Bow", "Disturbia", and a rerecorded Maroon 5 song, "If I Never See Your Face Again" — all were released as singles." * "The album reached ... the top-twenty elsewhere." -- Where? * "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al, AFAIA shouldn't be hyphened, and whenever these are used, it's done so in a very misleading way: "top-twenty single "Break It Off"", (top ten in some places); "top-thirty single "We Ride"" (Didn't make top 40 in some markets); "top-twenty song "Shut Up and Drive" (top five in certain countries); and the top-ten hits "Don't Stop the Music" (number 1 in the majority of the charts we give) and "Hate That I Love You"" (top 20 in most of the charts we show) * What is "US D/E"? * What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not ISO codes * Why does GRC link to a non-specific page?

I have run through the lead and semi-rewritten it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#3 Comprehensiveness: * The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography * Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Just stick to the main US chart, like it is with all the other countries.

Loud will be released in two days, and if I remove it now some IP will probably add it back. I'll leave that for now. As for component charts, I don't really see the issue, unless you want consistency with charts (ie the same ten charts used throughout) like at Lady Gaga discography. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#4 and #5a Structure and Style:

• I have no problem with articles complying with WP:ACCESS, but the recent changes this merry band has insisted that WP:DISCOG follow make little to no sense to many of us. They claim "an expert" told them to do this, yet none of us can communicate with this expert, and he hasn't come onto Wikipedia to state his case. Was there even a centralised Request for Comment on this matter? I'm not going to rehash points everyone else made, just link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 14#Manual of Style Issues.
• The first point that Criterion 4 makes is "It is easy to navigate". There is an insistence for the proposed WikiProject Discog's style guide to be followed to the letter; however, recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Look and feel and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#New Style is Hard to Read highlight how this new-and-improved style is poorly thought out and is in fact not easy to navigate.
• Why are album and singles titles treated as row headings? They're really not headings in a traditional sense
• As I wrote this nomination yesterday, I've stricken these points due to what appears to be renewed discussions. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

* Is it necessary to plaster "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales figures and certifications" or whatever before each and every table? Any halfwit knows what they are. Bold face is being used in vio of the MOS, too. It's especially bad on entries such as "All of the Lights" :Urrgh, this new discography style drives me around too. I believe that the bolding of row headers has ceased now, though.... Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#5b Files: * The current infobox image being used File:Rihanna LGOET 16-08-5-2.png, although being more recent, is of poorer quality than the previous one File:Rihanna-brisbane-cropped.jpg. It's in the wrong file format for a photo, it's blurry and all sorts of wrong colors. I know that "high quality images" is not a requirement, but when her style hasn't changed much between the two pictures, there's no real need to backstep.

I agree. Image changed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FL?#6 Stability:

• There's all sorts of discussions scattered around MOS talk pages, article talk pages, FL talk pages, meta talk pages and no one is in agreement with these changes ACCESS are insisting upon, even with the best of intentions. Nobody likes them, nobody understands them, and applying them to articles is premature. It's not exactly stable.

I am willing to convert it back, but I will need some backing as there is a whole crew of the DISCOGSTYLE waving their wands left, right and centre. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, don't do that. It seems that concessions have been made on both sides, and FLC, MOS and ACCESS are now in somewhat of an agreement. I'll just strike the concern. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

• "In 2007 Rihanna released her most successful album to date, Good Girl Gone Bad" -- This should certainly be sourced
• The US sales figures I've never understood why they're now included. They weren't vetted in the FLC, and they can never be current while the albums are still available for purchase. Are we sure these are actual sales totals and not shipping totals?

* Crap like www.rihannanow.com and acharts are not Reliable sources

• Ref 55 needs attention

I know it might seem a bit pointy based on current discussions dotted around the site, especially considering that some have named this one, but there are plenty of other issues with it, besides the DISCOGSTYLE/ACCESS factor. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist You're right, the article totally sucks. In fact, <sarcasm>it should be deleted right away</sarcasm> (although I don't see what your problem is with ref 55, and you didn't say what attention it needs). <sarcasm>I hope you'll be nominating the other discographies that have been adjusted for conformance to WP:ACCESS so we don't have to look at ugly bold face headings for the 3 days it might take to get the CSS changed, or <shiver!> suffer table captions on tables. Delete it now, quick, before somebody sees it. Or, you know, has it read to them by their screen-reader.</sarcasm> struck by JohnFromPinckney 06:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already stricken any concerns with ACCESS and DISCOGSTYLE, you patronising little wanker. Care to address any of the other 30 points I raised? Maybe I've spent too much time on elsewhere, because I can't help but think of the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" at this point. Ref 55 has three refs in one. They should be separate. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Itemized comments on nominator's points

• For me, the lede is about two paragraphs too long. It was even longer, until somebody did some pruning in the last month or so.

I once tried to address what I think is an oversized lede by trying to separate it into an actual, short lede followed by the TOC, followed by whatever analysis we had, but my edit didn't fly. Even better (IMO) would be an emphasis on the discography rather than the career arc or commercial success of the artist. There's an enormous and refreshing difference when I look at The Beatles discography. The intro there doesn't say anything about which single was the 12th number-one song or how many units were sold. And that's The Beatles, fercripessake.

• The text has been written by a committee of fans (which I think partially explains the difference I mention above), so not only is there a lot of new stuff added every week, for every release (or every rumored release), there's also an abundance of insert-it-here and oops-now-that's-changed. Over time, the overview gets lost. It needs rewriting by one individual who speaks standard English.

BTW, and FWIW, this article suffered from the attention of one fan-editor in particular who, while eager to contribute and aware of all the latest miscellany relating to Rihanna, had a poor grasp on the differences between an encyclopedia, a newspaper, and a gossip rag; had no idea how to format a reference citation (or when one's needed); and exhibited generally disorganised and unconcentrated behavior. The results were often sloppy, and my "contributions" to this article are perhaps best summarized as "janitorial". Also BTW, Matthew, it seems you notified me before anyone else, which is both appreciated (by me) and depressing (to me).

• I think "top-forty", "top-twenty" et al., are fine (correct, even) when used as adjectives. "It's her second top-forty single..." but "it's her first single in the top ten."

• What is "US D/E"? I suppose this is a rhetorical question, as it's linked, and you mention "US Dance/Electronic" five lines lower down.

• What is "BE-F" and "BE-W"? Certainly not ISO codes. True, but then, neither are SWI, GER, or UK. Would you like them better if they were "BE-V" and "BE-W"? Also not complete ISO codes, AFAICT, but close, and clear enough, no? Or would you prefer the official but lengthier BE-VLG and BE-WAL? Personally, I wish all the discogs used ISO-3 codes exclusively, but that's a task I'm saving for after the acceptance of WP:DISCOGSTYLE.

• Why does GRC link to a non-specific page? I don't know why, especially as there's an IFPI Greece.

• The discography is including titles that haven't been released, and are therefore not a part of the discography Do you mean Loud, the album due out next week, or particular songs or singles?

• Is there a reason that component charts or whatever they are such as US Dance/Electronic are bulking up the tables? Yes: we had the info. With refs, even. Okay, it's not a good reason, but that's why.

• FL?#6 Stability: Any stability problems on this article are not related to WP:ACCESS, to "all sorts of discussions scattered around", nor to your unproven claims that, "nobody likes them, nobody understands them, etc." The article might be considered unstable because it is constantly being edited by people who have little comprehension of or interest in the concept of verifiable references (and who don't know what an edit summary is). As long as Rihanna is charting and selling big, this page in the encyclopedia anybody can edit will keep churning random numbers in and out of the peaks and certs columns.

• The US sales figures I've never understood why they're now included. They weren't vetted in the FLC, and they can never be current while the albums are still available for purchase. Are we sure these are actual sales totals and not shipping totals? They're included because WP:DISCOGSTYLE suggests they be included. There has been some discussion about excising that suggestion but consensus was lacking on complete removal, so we settled for a downgraded mention with cautionary notes. The sales figures now shown in the article weren't vetted in the FLC from 18 months ago because they're newer. If you insist sales figures be always current at every instant, then you'll have to doing some loud arguing in more places than just here. Newspaper circulation figures would be equally unusable, like automobile sales for current models, video rental numbers for movies, population figures for coutries where people are still reproducing or dying, etc. The figures are what Billboard/Nielsen reports. They invariably say "sold". That doesn't make me sure, but it's what we've got.

• References are formatted with written dates and ISO dates, they should all be one kind Yes! MoS says date formats should be consistent within the refs (even if they're different from article text). Yet I see people consistently (well, often) adding publish date as, say, November 4, 2010, with an accessdate like 2010-11-04. I get the impression that the ISO style isn't even welcome here on WP anymore. And if that's the case, we ought to get a bot to go sweeping though all of article space. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's probably because most readers of Wikipedia are human, not machines. Despite your concern, though, ISO throughout refs or human-readable throughout refs, either acceptable. But no mixtures, as you've identified. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• You're right about The Beatles discography Lead. It would be nice to use that as some sort of template or example for other discogs, but unfortunately, I don't think that it could be replicated/rewritten for Rihanna's discography. I know what you mean about fans editing the article and adding information that shouldn't be there. For the first few months I tried to keep up with it but it's an uphill battle, and sometimes bringing the page here for review doesn't hurt. Why did I notify you first? Because you're now the number 1 contributor to the page, save for the perma-blocked User:Iluvrihanna24. I'd already guessed that most of your edits were clean-up and ACCESS related rather than content adding, but I wasn't going to notify myself! :p I should notify User:Ericorbit though. I'll do that after this post.
• If "top-twenty" is correct usage for adjectives, that's good. I wasn't sure so brought it up just-in-case. Yes, the question about "US D/E" is rhetorical, but it's extremely likely that someone else won't know what it is, especially an IP visitor without pop-ups and such. If there's a way of making it more understandable, then it should. In other discogs I've contributed to I use simply "VLG" and "WAL" to identify the two different Belgian charts. I'd prefer BE-V over BE-F, since the latter is completely made up. I also try to use the correct "SUI", but "SWI" ( and "GER") seem to be the preferred choices, even though they is incorrect. Some fights aren't worth taking on at article-level, instead leaving them to review processes such as this. I would also like to see ISO-3 codes be used thoughout the WikiProject (perhaps ISO-2 for UK and US), but I think "UK" is preferable over "GBR" because it leads to issues of people saying, "but the UK includes Northern Ireland, and Great Britain doesn't, and anyway, there isn't a Great Britain Top 40."
• Yes, I was speaking of Loud. If it hasn't been released, it cannot be a part of a discography, which is a catalog of releases. Before it is released, it could be argued that it doesn't technically exist.
• If we're to keep sales figures on the page, it should be made clear that they are correct to a certain date so that people using the site are not misled with information that they assume to be current. While the page is nominated here, it's a good time to check the references used, see if any can be updated, etc etc. My concern that they weren't vetted during the FLC is basically the same as yours at the link you gave. They're usually back-calculated based on certifications or based on shipments.
• It used to be that citation templates automatically formatted dates in the ISO format. That's been discontinued, and If I'm right, ref dates should now be formatted in the same fashion as dates are written in prose in the article. That doesn't mean they ISO dates can't be used in references, it's just that because ISO dates are rarely used in written prose, it makes it appear that they are out of favour. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep My issues were resolved. My only comment is the fact that the paragraphing is a little awkward. Good job fixing it :)Delist There are allot of "Citation Needed" tags, there are unsourced material. The lead isn't very well written and some chart positions and certifications are not completely referenced. Also, as per John above me.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with much of your demotion argument, want to distance myself from John's comments, and back every word of your response to him. However, further to the comments you have already struck, I'd suggest that stability be left out of this. The fact that a group of editors have decided to focus on one WikiProject (albeit with commendable intentions) does not mean that all of that WikiProject's featured lists should be demoted for failing to comply straight away. —WFC— 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, perhaps. After all, it's not like there are edit wars on the page, it's more from concerns being raised elsewhere. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• More on references:
  • Several dead links.
    • I believe all dead links have been fixed Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Failure to comply with WP:DASH in dozens of titles.
    • Where? Can you give an example? Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• As noted, bold captions fail WP:MOS.
  • MOS:BOLD has been amended Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Blank cells are a no-no for me, try an em-dash in those ones.
  • Done Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• I take it, from an access point of view, that the very small font used to describe the image in the infobox is acceptable? We do have a bold link in the infobox "caption" which I thought contravened MOS too?
  • Sorry, I'm not sure I understand... Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Matthew has made a good job of reviewing the list in detail, but one bit of prose jumped out at me, that a particular release peaked in the top 40 of "most other album charts". That's some claim to go unreferenced

• Yes, and it's vague as to whether it means most other Billboard album charts, or album charts of most other countries. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now it needs a lot of work to remain "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist per nominator.--Cannibaloki 03:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - There are a number of dead links and non-sourced material. Afro (Talk) 08:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to follow up at the users requests there are still problems with the citations, easily fixable they just need to use {{Cite web}}. Afro (Talk) 11:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CT citation templates are optional, and citation formats may be mixed, as they produce the same result. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Though I agree its optional but it does present an Inconsistency with the format. Afro (Talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an inconsistency, as it is formatted the same way as the output of the citation templates. Inconsistencies that are relevant are things such as AE vs BE spelling and visible formatting. This is not actually an issue. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I would say an article complying with the MOS is relevant as this is in the MOS, They do of course look the same on output but input there still remains the inconsistency. Afro (Nice Beaver) 02:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I said before, a mix of citation inputs is OK, as they all produce similar formats. This is a non-issue. Can you point me to the part of the MoS that states that we must use a citation template throughout? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I'll drop this point on the basis of WP:IMPERFECT. After looking over the article I notice that some of her singles went Platinum in the European Hot 100 Singles, I'm just curious if its a good idea to include these in the selected Peak chart positions. Afro (Nice Beaver) 07:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that all the IFPI certifies in a few countries together, so that sales from different countries are added together. I'm not too sure though, I'll get others to have a look here. The European Hot 100 is different as it takes into account the singles charts of most (or all?) of mainland Europe, rather than just the IFPI ones (I think). We already have 10 charts, and the Euro Hot 100 is a kind of averaged out chart. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

European stuff

There's a little bit of confusion here, but maybe we can clear that up. Afro, her singles can't have gone platinum, as there are no European awards for singles. Probably you meant albums, which the IFPI does certify. And specifically, they say:

Sales in the following countries will be considered eligible for inclusion towards the award: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.

Billboard, meanwhile, does have have a singles chart, the European Hot 100 Singles, which we don't happen to currently include in this discog. Billboard also tracks European Top 100 Albums, which it explains as

The week's most popular albums complied from the official sales charts of 19 European countries, ranked on a weighted-point system based on IFPI World Rankings and country size. Digital download sales are included in certain European charts provided.

We pause now to count the countries listed by IFPI and compare that number (26) with Billboard's 19. They're different, so maybe some editors will think we can't use one or the other, although Europe is still pretty much Europe.

I've always felt a little funny using European data, cause it feels kind of ... fake or something, but I'm sure it's actually just as good as any of the country charts or certs. However, if we decide to add Eurpoean peaks, it seems almost obligatory to remove the UK, France, Germany, etc., peaks from the tables. For this article, that would leave 3 or 4 charts (AUS, CAN, US, maybe NZ) besides the EU charts. If we don't add the EU peaks, then by DISCOG guidelines we ought to remove the EU certs that are currently there. I'd personally just keep the individual countries, but others' opinions may certainly vary. There could be interesting arguments both ways. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify I did accidentally mistake albums for singles. I'd agree with the suggestion to remove the certification at present if you don't wish to add the peak chart positions, I'd accept more opinions regarding this. Afro (Talk) 18:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems like the MoS/Acccess stuff was cleaned up. Besides that point, the current conversion to WP:DISCOGSTYLE should be no reason do delist the article. Candyo32 10:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment you do realise most of the comments are not about access don't you? Problems still exist, for instance, the three "citation needed" tags? The non-MOS compliant references? The unreferenced recent release? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have refreshed the prose and fixed several links. While the list is in no way perfect, I would appreciate it if reviewers could revisit and strike any resolved issues. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up -- OK, outstanding issues for me are:

• The WP:LEDE has increased in size to four paragraphs, each one dedicated to a studio album. If it carries on like this, there'll be yet another paragraph next month. Instead of detailing her career, which should be left to Rihanna, it needs to refocus itself to be an overview of her entire discography. I see no mention of any music videos, including her numerous collaborations with director Anthony Madler

• It's been reduced a bit, so that's good; however, it still reads like, "she released X, it got to A in the charts. Next came Y. That got to B. Z followed, it got to C." I don't know if anything can be done about it though.

• The article's references were checked when this was nominated 18 months ago. Now is a good time to make sure that everything is still verified.

• Has this been done by someone unbiassed and uninvolved with the article?

• I've noticed that a few chart positions been changed, so something's not right there. Either they were wrong to begin with, or they're wrong now.

• Again, have these be checked yet?

• "including the worldwide number-one hit "Umbrella"" -- quite a bold statement, since we only give a sample of 10 charts
• "Rated R produced the worldwide top-ten hit "Russian Roulette"" -- again, with only 10 charts to look at, we can't be sure this was a worldwide top-ten hit. Show me it is in Uzbekistan and I might believe you.

• Still there. We're only showing 10 charts, and while they may be number 1 in those charts, we can't say for certain that they were number 1 in all countries. Such bold statements need citations or rewriting.

• "As of July 23, 2010, Rihanna had sold approximately 5.56 million album units in the US." -- this figure can be updated and sourced to last weekend's UK X-Factor show.

• Hasn't been done yet

• A number of refs are tagged as dead or CN

• Still, as TRM noted above

• Not sure about RS-ness of promonews.tv

• Still not.

• MTV vs MTV News vs MTV.com

• Still in there. "Metro.co.uk" too, possibly a couple of others.

• References are formatted with written dates and ISO dates, they should all be one kind

• Still in different formats.

So there's a few things that need resolving before I'm comfortable saying "keep". Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the "worldwide" POVs in the lead. I can't seem to find an updated sales figure; do you have a link? Ref dates should be uniform now. MTV things are fixed. Some are from MTV News, which is published by MTV, while others are straight from MTV. Promonews refs have been replaced. I'll keep working on the other points. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No dead links or {{fact}}s any more. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

*Tentative delist - some idiot keeps changing the order of the charts to put the US singles first...even though Rihanna as not an American artist. The vandalism takes too much work...this article is going to be a nightmare to keep on the featured list! (mikomango (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

• Vandalism is not not sticking to a WikiProject's proposed style guideline. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:No personal attacks Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• exhales deeply and rolls eyes* Matthewedwards, gratuitously and superfluously using the word "idiot" to describe an Ameri--centrist user who constantly tries to frame a Barbadian artist as an American artist is the closest thing I have ever come to personally attacking someone on Wikipedia (before this very edit). Please know I consider your refusal to acknowledge the clear superfluousness of the word "idiot" in that context as a personal attack in itself. *sigh* Despite your thinly-veiled and unnecessary snarkiness, your point is wholly valid and thus I strikethrough my original argument for this page and vote for Keep. (mikomango (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Revisit

• The Lede is still way too big for such basic subject matter. WP:LEDE says that it should be no more than four paragraphs, and that's for complex articles. Even though it's at three right now, it's obvious by the page history that all that's happened is that the line breaks of five paragraphs have been deleted. We don't need to know about her entire career on this page.
• "Rihanna's fourth studio effort, Rated R..." -- Is "effort" really word choice of a professional standard?
• "This broke a brand new record becoming the first time in Hot 100 history that an album's debut single reached number one after the second single." looks like it's been added as an afterthough. It could probably be rewritten a bit more concisely.
• Otherwise the prose is pretty good now, and everything else seems to be in order.
• As for updated sales figures, I'll watch the episode of The X Factor she appeared on last month. It tells you on there.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I found the X Factor sales figure! :D Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep SEeing all the different improvements by the concerned editors, I do want the article to retain its FL status. Minor overhangings are not noteworthy in its bronze star polishing. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:22, 7 December 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 07:27, 1 December 2010 [3].

---

List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners

Notified: Strange Passerby, Courcelles, Hebrides, Nergaal, WikiProject Olympics

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a list that does not meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria of inline citations. While it does include a well cited stub quality article (the lead), the list is uncited though it does contain general references see Just the the list without the lead. A request to add incline citations to the article was reverted. The list content seems to have been taken by copy and paste from existing small articles with no validation. While this article might be a good canidate for Wikipedia:Featured Stubs if the un-cited content was removed, it does not meet the criteria for a featured list. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note for background reading on an already lengthy discussion on this, please see this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per the instructions, "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates)". This was promoted 15 days ago. Courcelles 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment this may be mildly off-topic, but the tone of the nomination leaves a little to be desired and really seems to lack any good faith. Having worked with dozens of great contributors at WP:FLC, I'd like to clarify that no-one is trying to dupe the community, and pointed remarks such as "this article might be a good canidate (sic) for Wikipedia:Featured Stubs" is most unhelpful. I'd like to think that we can resolve this issue to the benefit of the community as a whole, rather than making some diligent editors feel like crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question does this version cover the problem as it now has "in-line citations"? Or would the nominator rather have that comment (i.e. ".. medal winners shown below.[11][12]") in every subsection as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Facts should be validated and referenced to the actual sources used to support the content. For instance when I search for "Speed skating" in the 1936 winter games, there are no results on olympic.org [4] though searching for "Max Stiepl" and Bronze [5], does find support for his entry, so if olympic.org is the validation source then unique reference for every entry would be appropriate. Attempts to fully open the PDF book constantly fail for me, so it is not possible for me to validate any entries through that source. If the German language book was actually used to validate the content then page numbers should be available, and should be used at what ever level is appropriate to document the validation, this could be a page range for a section or may need more detail depending on the book format. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, some of these "modern" websites don't provide unique URLs and so instruction on how to validate using a search page is generally considered sufficient to find what you're looking for. I would think that website alone would be enough. However, the PDF, admittedly in German, is available. Perhaps your internet connection is inadequate, I just downloaded it fine. However, that reference isn't used to reference the medallists, it's used as a general reference for the prose. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I managed something quite cool, a complete list from the Olympic website with a URL. Try this. Hopefully it loads for you and would address the problem using my suggestion? I've updated my experimental attempt here... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Query of olympic.org looks pretty good, I searched around the other supporting pages and on Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics found a different link to the German book, it is about half the size and opens for me, I used it to reference the table on Speed skating at the 1936 Winter Olympics [6]. I was able to include the page number as the format in the book is much the same as the list table. I looked around gBooks and don't find another good source so the German book and olympic.org appear to be the only two source easily available on line. I would reference each table with both sources (using page numbers for the book, and your link for the web page), I would also add the references to the tables on the main article that the tables came from as a courtesy. You might choose a different citation format then I used ( I usually only add a single reference as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles), the choice is yours. This would provide two fairly specific references to each table, one that is not web page dependent, and one that is provides easy online verification. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we have every fact verifiable through an inline citation, I can't see any existing problems with your initial objection. The other suggestions, while possibly useful, should not lead to the delisting of the FL. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, way to be WP:BITEy to a new contributor to FLC. The nominator failed to raise any objection at the FLC, then did not approach either me or Courcelles with his issues before unilaterally tagging the article sections he thought had problems. There is a big lack of good faith from the nominator here. Do not delist per clear approval at FLC where this supposed problem was never an issue. StrPby (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• At the top of the FLRC page doesn't it say "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted" Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It does, indeed. But I get the feeling we'd just be delaying the inevitable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep – Part of this is from the procedural end, since I believe letting a list go to FLRC 2 weeks after its promotion sets a bad precedent for the future. However, I also didn't think the general references were problematic to begin with; now that they've been incorporated in-line, I don't see how a demotion would have any merit. My one recommendation is to combine the three seperate citations to the complete list from the Olympic website, which should be easy to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 1 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:25, 17 December 2010 [7].

---

List of Kylie Minogue concert tours

Notified: WikiProject Kylie Minogue, Underneath-it-All

The list was nominated 3 years ago, it has a number of dead links which I have taken the time to mark accordingly. I feel its lead isn't engaging nor is it comprehensive to define the scope of the article. It also fails a number of MOS guidelines, including internal consistency and MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 15:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the list probably deserves further scrutiny you could have pasted the urls into Wayback and fixed the dead links which only takes marginally longer than tagging them as dead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

De-list

• Aside from the dead links, which should be fixed, there are other issues.
• Image caption should not have a full stop.
• Intro sentence needs updating to match current standards (i.e. not "This is a list of...") and avoid bold links.
• "Asia and South America, And her first ever tour" poor grammar.
• "Her 2006/2007 extravaganza," bad year range format and very much POV with "extravaganza"
• "sold-out across" no need for hyphen. If it said "was a sell-out" then fine, otherwise "sold out".
• Lead is weak and needs expansion to meet current expectations of a featured list.
• Overuse (and unnecessary use) of bold in the notes for each tour.
• "Notable concerts" - what makes these more notable than any other concert she's performed? Pure POV.
• Mixed date formats in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist: the lead is very short. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2010 (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 01:42, 4 December 2010 [8].

---

List of Northwest Territories general elections

Notified: WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's showing its age, but hopefully a few fixes and the bronze star stays:

• Very weak intro, no "This list.." etc, compliance with WP:MOSBOLD too is needed.
• No bold linking.
• Capitalisation needs work (FPTP).
• References - the lead, first para both completely unreferenced.
• Notes are really References, and they lack comprehensive source information, like publisher, publication date etc, and should really use {{Cite web}} or similar, where appropriate.
• Explain NWT before using it as an abbreviation.
• List of elections appears to have just one in-line reference, there are no general references, where are the rest cited?
• References "section" is just a maintenance tag.
• Two of the five ELs are not directly relevant, and the one with the date range should use en-dash, not spaced hyphen.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist - Lack of references to verify information. Seems to also be an inconsistent use of colour in the actual table. The table also seems to be formatted in a confusing manner. Afro (Talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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