Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 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 17:49, 16 January 2010 [1].

---

All-NBA Team

Notified WikiProject National Basketball Association, WikiProject Awards and User:Chrishomingtang.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seems to be far less user friendly, lacks in-line citations, and lacks illustrations in comparison to some other featured lists which I have visited.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what part of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria did this list violate? The lead has in-line citations and illustrations are not required. So, I am not sure why you think this list should be removed.—Chris!_c/t 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WFCforLife far better stated what I was trying to get at.Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

• I don't think the table should be sortable, but "user friendly" certainly does fall under criteria 4. A compact TOC linking to the start of each year would help navigation, such as the one in Premier League Manager of the Month.
• Positions should be added, given that they are part of the selection criteria. This could be done in numbering format for the most efficient use of space (1 for point guard, 2 for shooting guard, etc), and would only need to be done once per row (i.e. point guards are always listed first, shooting guards are always listed second, etc). The key would need to be amended accordingly.
• May I suggest that the table is split into 1946-47 to 1954-1955, 1955-56 to 1987-1988, and 1988-89 onwards (same article, but three tables). This has no bearing on whether this meets the FLC standards, but indirectly I think it will be a huge help:

• On the assumption that the table isn't sortable and isn't going to be, it makes no difference to the user.
• It allows for paragraphs explaining the most obvious changes in slightly more detail, in the most appropriate places.
• Splitting the first ten seasons from the rest of the table makes it easier to create a standard format for positions, as explained above. For the first ten seasons you would probably have to create a different format, where a player's position is listed next to his name.
• While pictures are not required, it is generally understood that they should be there unless there is a good reason. At the moment there is a good reason- the width of the table. But splitting the table has other benefits, and a side-effect would be that we're getting rid of the obstacle on this front. From what I've seen of other lists there's no shortage of NBA pictures to choose from. By mixing and matching from various other lists and articles, you should get away with not having to write much of the alt text. Where alt text is missing, you can write alt text once and yet two articles will get the benefit!

• Bold shouldn't be used to signify MVPs. Consider using italics.
• "active" should be changed to either "have competed in the 2009–10 NBA season" or "are contracted to an NBA team for the 2009–2010 season".

There's quite a lot of basketball participation on FLC, so I believe that this can and will be saved. Feel free to drop me a note if you're stuck on anything though. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I can see the benefits of splitting the tables.—Chris!_c/t 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The table is split. Since all players are listed according to positions in the 2 forwards, 1 center and 2 guards order, so I don't see the point of adding an additional column. As for the TOC, images and all other issues, I will deal with that tomorrow.—Chris!_c/t 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• What's the status on the above issues? Also, a dead link needs to be fixed; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I fixed everything. The dead link is not dead. I don't know why the toolbox says it's dead.—Chris!_c/t 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree there has been substantial improvement to the list.Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lean keep – The reference is showing up as dead because .html hasn't been typed in. Otherwise, I see no major issues that would cause a failure to meet FL criteria. I'm not in love with the United States and Canada links (really common subjects that aren't closely related to the topic), but the rest of the lead seems reasonable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Link fixed; both United States and Canada delinked—Chris!_c/t 03:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Sorry for the late reply. WFCforLife (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Lean keep Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 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 17:49, 16 January 2010 [2].

---

List of Formula One drivers

Notified: WikiProject Formula One, User:Piniricc65, User:Schumi555, User:DH85868993 and User:Treki

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current FL criteria. In particular, it lacks an introduction or lead, with random facts mixed with table information where there should be a lead (criterion 2). The tables are not sortable (criterion 4). It has several non-compliances with the MOS, including the use of italics for general text, hyphens instead of endashes (criteria 5). The referencing is substandard—they are merely non-formated external links at the end, without any inline citation, even where particular claims are being made in the lead. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove – Many factors cause this list to not meet modern standards:

• Seems short on references. The lead is uncited, as are the footnotes.
  • I think that's covered now. WFCforLife (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'm really uncertain about the reliability of the general references. The one reference that I would consider reliable (GrandPrix.com) links to the site's front page; I don't see how that is going to verify anything in the list.
  • General references added. WFCforLife (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• The lead could stand to be expanded a bit, in addition to being cited where necessary.
  • I think its of an appropriate length now, with the pertinent information from the list included. Do you have any suggestions on what more is needed to introduce the subject? WFCforLife (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• A key could be added with information on what the color means, replacing the sentence in the lead. This should include a note on linked years going to articles on F1 seasons, to avoid possible confusion.
  • Done.
• Bolding should no longer be used to amplify table text. If it needs accentuation, use italics instead.
  • Done.
    • Note that bolding is the standard mechanism for indicating current drivers/teams within the Formula One articles. Personally, I'd like to see this change reversed. DH85868993 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Note that MOS:BOLD discourages bolding for article text, favoring italics instead. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Arsenik on the MoS points and potential for sorting.
  • Endashing done. Sorting in progress, see below for details. WFCforLife (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• An image for the lead would be nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done

I agree with all of the above. I'm about to nominate a list myself, and I'm determined to get cracking on my sandbox today, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Could we keep this open until about Monday? WFCforLife (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Following on from my earlier comments, here is what I plan to do.

• I'll work on the lead from the information that's in this list, although members of WP:F1 will need to reference it.
• I'll sort out the other MoS points.
• I'll add a picture, and obviously sort out the alt text on it etc.

However, I'm not totally sold on the sorting. Criteria 4 does only mandates sorting where it is helpful. I'd question whether removing the alphabetical headings in favour of a huge, consolidated, extremely slow to sort table would "help". WFCforLife (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying this list is utterly useless without a sort function, but it provides very little value. At current, it shows a bunch of names and the associated statistics (which should be available on each drivers page anyway). That's fine, but what becomes interesting is if the reader can start using this table to compare drivers. With a sort function, it becomes easy to make a list of drivers by starts, points, first season (chronology) etc. I would even recommend putting the flagicons so the reader can sort by nationality. By sorting twice (for instance, first by starts and then by country), the reader can establish which are the most active drivers from a country. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle I agree with all of that (I certainly will be giving nationality its own colum), but the list is already 167kb long. Once the lead is rewritten, the references brought up to scratch and sort keys added, it would easily be 180kb, probably more. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether we should consider splitting the drivers in a more useful way than the alphabetical division, or even if we should consider splitting this list altogether, in a similar way to Gillingham F.C. here, here and here. I'm not irrevocably opposed to making this into one giant sortable table, but given that we already have a list of List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, I do think it's reasonable to challenge this. Perhaps the way to go is to keep this as one list, but sort the drivers by nationality rather than letter of surname? WFCforLife (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the sorting, I've edited the Z section to demonstrate what I believe would be necessary for a sortable table. A sort function of some sort would help, and for that reason I will continue working on it (although I'm going to keep them divided by surname for now). But I'm yet to be convinced that a giant table is the way to go. If a compelling case is made that the benefit of a giant sortable table outweighs the signficant problems that a 150KB sortable table poses to readers I may change my opinion.

I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but I would like to make the point that my alternative proposal (divide by nationality) would actually involve more work. Turning 26 sortable tables into one bigger one isn't difficult, whereas going from alphabetical order to nationality would take ages. But I believe for accessibility reasons its an alternative we should consider. WFCforLife (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the list merged into one large sortable table, or to remain split by first letter of surname (i.e. as it is now) but I wouldn't be in favour of splitting by any other property, e.g. nationality or number of races, etc. DH85868993 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'm in the process of making the tables sortable (once I've done that, deciding how we sort involves little work). But would you be able to help with the sourcing? If the current sources are no good or not enough I wouldn't know where to look. WFCforLife (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the Formula One website? If nothing else, it should prove helpful for citing the footnotes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, the lead especially needs work yet. Wizardman 05:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  Withdraw delist, looks far better than when I looked at it last time, though unfortunately I don't have time to give it a more thorough review. Wizardman _{Help review good articles} 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment significant work is ongoing. Putting aside how busy I've been lately, words can't describe how big a job the sorting was, but I'm nearly there now. D-Z are complete, and once A-C are done (a day or two, depending on how I feel) the most important and labourious aspect of it will be done. The lead is the relatively easy bit, in the sense that while it needs a lot of work, it's far easier to remedy and then that just leaves sourcing. WFCforLife (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Response keep going. The FLRC won't be closed if work is being done to improve it. Good stuff, well done for stepping up to the mark! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Important comment about sorting. Okay, the tables are now all fully sortable, and there is scope to start consolidating all of them into one super table. Indeed User:Afkatk has begun this process, as well as introducing a couple of other improvements. I would encourage those who are advocating a giant table to have a look at the current A-F table, and consider that this is only a quarter of the data. Sort times increase exponentially; to sort four times as much would take far more than four times as long, if indeed some computers could manage it at all. WFCforLife (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't really think one big long Table is really an issue, I do think though something along the lines of splitting the massive table (once merging is complete) into 2 seperate Articles might be a good idea, A-M and N-Z. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think if we don't have one big sortable table, then there's probably no point making the tables sortable at all; I mean what's the point of being able to sort drivers whose surname starts with "G" (or any other individual letter) by number of races started, or number of points scored or whatever? DH85868993 (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• What's the status here? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The list has been turned into "one big sortable table", so I'm happy. DH85868993 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I've addressed the outstanding issues. I've contacted Arsenikk to see if he/she has any outstanding objections. I know Giants normally watchlists FLC and FLRCs, but if needs be I could give a little reminder. WFCforLife (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so everybody is aware, Giants struck his resolved comments on 4 January and said he would "will take a closer look later". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: While I am satisfied with the progress of the list, and the table itself is mostly up to standards, I still do not feel that the articles as such meets the FL criteria: The lead is too short Could you expand on this? There's no minimum requirement for lead length, merely that the lead introduces the subject and scope of the list. Is there something you would like to see? WFCforLife (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I was also dissatisfied with the quality of the prose, but now it has been rewritten and is in my opinion 'engaging'. Arsenikk (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC) All claims in the lead need inline citations Italics should not be used for 'current' (or similar) highlighting. Instead, use a symbol or color the box. Afkatk has now addressed this point. WFCforLife (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I do not understand why list article needs six external links. If the references do not suffice, then these should be added as references, if reliable. If not, they should be removed. In addition, the top link is dead. Relevant external links have been moved to the References section; irrelevant ones have been deleted. DH85868993 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I will make a change to the highlighting within the next few days. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• What do some of the column names mean? Is a podium a top-three finish? What's the difference between a start and a race? There seem to be fewer than 737 that have a positive start number. And don't you have to start to have pole position (Fred Agabashian)?
• Can we use a color other than red, which has a negative connotation? How are there only 20 current drivers?

Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Is a podium a top-three finish? Yes. The column title now links to Podium#Usage in motorsport.
  • What's the difference between a start and a race? I've changed "Races" to "Entries" - the distinction between entries and starts is explained in the lead.
  • There seem to be fewer than 737 that have a positive start number. Don't have time to count them at the moment.
    • Rather, more than 100 with a zero there.
  • And don't you have to start to have pole position (Fred Agabashian)? No. Pole position is achieved during qualifying. Even if that driver doesn't subsequently start the race, they are still credited with the pole position.
  • Can we use a color other than red, which has a negative connotation? Why does red have a negative connotation?
    • Think stop signs, the red card/flag, and warnings. I just think another color like blue is more visually appealing for the best racers.
      • If you are serious, do something about it. Please don't complain about things that have absolutely no relevance. WFCforLife (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • How are there only 20 current drivers? There were only 20 entries/cars/drivers in the last race. During the off-season, it's deliberately worded like this to avoid endless disputes about what constitutes a "current" driver.
    • I would prefer a broader definition. It seems inappropriate to consider drivers inactive because he didn't qualify or enter this one race.
      • Are suggesting that we knowingly mislead the reader by suggesting Sebastien Bourdais is a current driver, add the new Mercedes driver yet not the second Sauber driver, or add a driver to the list who has never (and still might never) driven in F1 such as Lucas di Grassi, because he is "current" (and therefore just as worthy of being highlighted as Schumacher)? I'm strongly opposed to any such change. WFCforLife (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • No. I would just think that there are more current racers than those who happened to be in the most recent race. There are still current racers who tried to enter Abu Dhabi but didn't qualify, right?

No. The Formula One entry is highly regulated. Teams enter the championship before the start of the season and each team must enter 2 cars at every race. In 2009 there were 10 teams so there were 20 cars/drivers at every race. Teams are permitted to change drivers as the season progresses, but as soon as a driver is "dropped" by a team they are considered to no longer be a "current" driver.DH85868993 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry I don't understand Formula One. Should that perhaps be clarified in the article then? Anyway, Keep

DH85868993 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Return comments – Missing from the beginning of the lead is an explanation of what Formula One is. This is fairly common in FLs, and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners has a good example to learn from. Some info from this may satisfy those still concerned about the length of the lead. I have transferred some information over, and added a little bit to explain the world championship. Spell out FIA. Done. "since its first event, the 1950 British Grand Prix." Hard to determine what "its" is, though the first comment should result in a fix here anyway. I believe I've linked into this effectively. Table: Philippe Etancelin sorts last, after every other name, because of the diacritics. I believe it's okay now. I'm working on a computer that can't handle the sort, but if my understanding of the sortname template is correct then he should sort correctly. If all else fails I'll consider removing the diacritics, but that must only be done as the last resort. Etancelin sorts correctly now. DH85868993 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Change Fastest Lap heading to Fastest lap as it isn't a proper noun. Do the same for Total Drivers in the other table. Done. The references of questionable reliability have returned, after being used as external links. The StatsF1 site, and both unformatted references, look shaky to me. If they aren't reliable, and others are concerned about the presence of external links, just remove them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Removed. WFCforLife (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep – Excellent work on salvaging this one. Looks like an FL-standard list once again. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:13, 16 January 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 The Rambling Man 14:06, 29 January 2010 [3].

---

The Nation of Ulysses discography

Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Discographies, WikiProject Alternative music

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a 3b violation. There are only nine entries, and (unless the group is resurrected), no more will come about. This should be merged into The Nation of Ulysses, which currently has five of the nine items. A good article, the band's main page will also provide a better introduction than a separate discography can. Mm40 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I agree that it fails 3b; the list could easily be merged into the main article without making it too large. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delist for above reasons. Sigh. Drewcifer (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delist and merge. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delist for reasons stated above. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 07:45, 21 January 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 Dabomb87 18:44, 2 January 2010 [4].

---

List of Swedish football champions

Notified WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Football and User:Johan Elisson.

This February 2006 promotion shows its age in a couple of key ways. First, more inline references are required for the text and footnotes, and I'm not knowledgeable on whether or not a couple of the provided general references are from reliable sources, not being up on my Swedish. The lead consists of exactly one sentence, before a longer History section; I see no reason that the two couldn't be merged to produce an appropriately sized lead. In addition, the image needs alt text and the tables could easily be made sortable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delist The issue of sourcing should be addressed first. Right now it's very hard to verify any information. --Cheetah (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per the two above. A lot of work needed. Wizardman 18:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comments

• Alt text and lead length been resolved.
• The lead however does need citing, and my Swedish won't suffice either.
• Of the general references, one is the Swedish Football Association, while the SFS is a professional publication. The other one seems superfluous to requirements and can probably be removed.
• The RSSSF will probably have something useful.
• Sorting seems straightforward (especially compared to my last couple of efforts). I will make the changes, once there is an indication here as to whether the four lists of champions should be merged or kept separate.

In summary, once the lead is cited and the visibly striking yet very easily dealt-with sorting problem resolved, I do not see a problem with this list. A few more pictures would be desirable, but I'm sure that can also be fairly easily resolved. In the interests of countering systemic bias, I've left a couple of carefully targetted notes on the Swedish wikipedia, in the hope that an English-speaking Swedish football fan will consider stepping in. I would ask that the directors consider waiting for another week before delisting this, as while the deficiencies are important, I think they are solveable (with the right linguistic skills) and that we should not give up through apathy. WFCforLife (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, there doesn't seem to be any interest in solving the problems that I can't remedy. If someone decides they want to take this up to FL standard in future, feel free to contact me for help or advise. WFCforLife (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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