Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 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 21:27, 21 July 2010 [1].

---

List of Heisman Trophy winners

Notified: WT:CFB, User talk:Avenged Eightfold

Due to continuous edit warring over the Reggie Bush Heisman Trophy, list appears to no longer meet criteria #6. Smashville^talk 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the need to delist because of a small content dispute. Obamafan70's comment on the talk page is spot on, IMO. Make a note of it and move on. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) I don't think I've ever seen a Featured item (article or list) lose its status because of edit-warring, and it does seem silly that its status should be imperilled over such a minor point in the grand scheme of things. I'm surprised nobody has sought page-protection to try and enforce a moratorium on editing by IPs (who seem to be carrying out the bulk of the edit-warring) until there is a consensus as to how to handle the situation. (And per Dabomb's comment on Obamafan70's wise suggestion). Bencherlite^Talk 19:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While we're here I might as well say that the {{citation needed}} needs removing, and the shade of the red used for Reggie makes the line utterly unreadable. But I agree with the above. This lists's issues are small and could easily have been dealt with without the need for an FLRC. --WFC-- 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Issues resolved I have added a footnote that resolves the Reggie Bush situation for now, and removed the citation needed tag. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Withdraw. Entirely willing to withdraw here. Upon further review, we appear to have some good editors watching the page to keep it in check. --Smashville^talk 21:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I am impressed at the quick fix of this article. Thanks to all who help resolved this issue before I even got the chance to check it out. A8x (talk) 00:09, 22 July 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 23:17, 20 July 2010 [2].

---

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners

Notified: NapHit, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seriously lacks any references in the lead or in the table itself. One external link?? The lead needs to get looked over in order to verify its contents. And the image used is suspected of being a copyright infringment. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Image replaced with one from Commons, that was easy to fix....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead still has incorrect information as well as many unverified statements. The table of winners lacks almost any sources. And the image used is more of a copyright violation than the one before and it has been set to become speedily deleted.

Even giving it a bird's view, anyone can tell this isn't even close to being FL material. How did it ever get promoted is beyond me. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

• Okay, I've substituted all the templates of article parts for Wikipedia:Accessibility reasons as first cited at this FLC (I believe). I've redirected templates to article sections to preserve GFDL. Also I've moved to a WP:REFGROUP system and will look to nest references within some of the second "group" of notes.
  • I was about to mention this too but you caught it.
• RE: External links. "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
  • That's right. But those are criteria set for any article. The criteria for all feature content must be exemplary. ONE external link for a competition that has been around for nearly 6 decades is far from being noted as a FL. It does not meet the FLC at section 3; as a matter of fact, it is highly ignored.
    • And the existence of this list is in violation of wikipedia's policy on CF; the entire information on this list can be found on the parent article. Either the tables on the parent article be removed or this page should be eliminated but we can't have two seperate articles showing the same information.
• "many unverified statements." - putting in citation needed tags would be helpful here. But if they are just statistics summarised from the later tables it does not need an explicit reference (provided the information in the tables is referenced).
  • Ok, I will break it down: the entire lead needs sources, references, something...it is obvious that three references for a whole page is far from meeting the forementioned section. I don't even need to go beyond the first sentence: "The UEFA Champions League is a seasonal association football competition established in 1956"...1956 or 1955? Which one?
  • The entire lead needs references and sources. That is what prevents it from being scrutinized. Once again, with such glaring errors like the above, it is highly surprising that it got promoted.
• I agree the referencing is a bit weak and I'll see what I can do.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I recommend you gather some people and start now. I strongly recommend that this list becomes demoted immediately. BTW, two of those 6 links you have lead to the main UEFA page meaning they are worthless. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Jamen, article improvement is always preferred to immediate removal as FL; as long as changes are ongoing this FLRC will remain open (within a reasonable time frame). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • As for "two of those 6 links you have lead to the main UEFA page". There is no "you have", this is not an article I have ever worked on before today. However, they are now all fixed. This process is about improving lists so making constructive comments is much more helpful than "this [should be] delisted immediately". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • All right...then, the entire lead needs to be revised. The lead is three paragraphs long and only 6 sentences can be verified. Incorrect information still exists. No final on the table of winners has references. The mere existence of that page is against Wiki's policy on content forking; either this list needs to go or the lists here...im short, the list needs a lot of work. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At the suggestion of WFCforLife and the blatant double copy that this article has become, I have suggested that this article be merged with its parent article (although the process has long started) since we effectively have two different articles showing the exact, same information. Here is the talk page.Jamen Somasu (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Update. I've cited all the lead. Also the table is now completely referenced (sources on the column heading). I've added some tooltip functionality to hover and reveal penalty scores while keeping the slightly longer system where WP:ACCESS issue exist. What I think needs doing still:
  • RSSF gives the attendance figures but I want to double check they are all right (I think I found one mistake before) before I put the reference on the column heading.
  • Nest some references into the notes, such as referencing eligibilty, disqualification etc.
• If there is anything outside this that people think need doing please comment what and I'll see what I can do. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, criteria one has been met (unless there are any objections). Criteria 3, in my opinion, is still lacking since the list is far from being comprehensive. Every edition needs a reference. For example, look at this list which is a FLC. If you go down to the actual table, you will see references on the right. Click on, say...the reference for the 1995 Recopa Sudamericana between Independiente and Vélez Sarsfield. If you do, it will take you to a link directing you to Independiente's trophy room, specifically the Recopa they won.

This is what I mean when I said that everything on the table of winners needs to be referenced. I know every club that has achieved anything has a trophy page, and some even go into details like the example shown above. Every edition needs to have winning club's official site backing each edition won.

Why should it be done? Because the list now, while passable, is mediocre: the bulk of the list is backed up only by one source (UEFA). You're telling me you can't find 20+ references on a tournament that has been around for over half-a-century? Technically, there is nothing I could object now. It just seems that, rather than trying to make top-notch lists like the list I have proposed (which has been butchered to death), we are just promoting mediocrity if we let this go. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your constant referal to Recopa is bordering on WP:POINTY. We are not discussing that list. I could use 55 different UEFA and 55 different RSSF citations but what is the point when it is all covered by current refs 9 and 10 it is just WP:CITEKILL. As you said there are no grounds to object now. Could it be better, yes, but remember no article can be perfect. If there is something your really want, you are welcome to add it yourself.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) (a.k.a the butcher of featured candidacies) :p. 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Status What issues, if any, remain to be addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Notes need references. Sandman888 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The references have some publishers that could use spelling out. Other than that and the notes (mentioned above), this is in keep territory. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with Sandman that notes 1-10 need inline citations. I always have and always will defend stand-alone usage of BBC, but the football specific acronyms UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) and FIFA (International Football Association Board) should be spelt out at least once. After that's done I think this is a definite Keep. WFC (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

* Note: The nominator of this FLRC has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry --WFC-- 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question on references. What exactly needs to be referenced? Refs 1-10 won't be a problem. [Referenced notes 1-10. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)] What about things like "No Greek clubs entered the competition from the 1955–56 season to the 1957–58 season" and "Romanian clubs did not enter the inaugural competition." Sure I could reference the general RSSSF tournament pages and there would be no Greek or Romanian club, but is it worth it? I've done the withdrawals, disqualifications and Monaco situation. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm slightly involved, but as indicated above I think this is fine now. --WFC-- 20:44, 20 July 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 23:17, 20 July 2010 [3].

---

List of Testudines families

Notified: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails criterion 2 (not much in the lead) and has no inline citations. The table itself looks nice, but it cannot be an FL if it fails those other two points. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• weak Strong keep Sandman888 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• it's scientific. Wikipedia has too much sports and entertainment (I'm as guilty as the next guy, I know), it is my belief that material pertaining to science and math should be given extra leeway and community effort.
• I'll try to deal with the citations
  • I've included two refs for two columns. I think that mainly covers the list. As for the lede, perhaps someone with a dictionary can verify what's written. Sandman888 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• The references are fixed, but I still find the lead to be lacking in general. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

;Comments: To be a bit frank, I don't like the attitude that we should have lower standards for science than popular culture. If we can have high standards for popular culture, we definitively should be just as thorough for science. The lead should be longer and needs a better opening. I've dealt with the opening sentence, but someone who knows what they're talking about should do the lead. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Immediately before the list, there needs to be description of the various columns. I've added a key; hopefully people will know what "Example species" and "Example picture" mean, Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Under family, there seems to be three distinct pieces of information, which should be moved to their own columns. As far as I can tell, this is common practice. With the key in place, I don't feel this is necessary. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) The article is underlinked, for instance genera and species. Dealt with. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) There is an hyphen where there should be an endash in the infobox. Fixed. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) The empty table spaces should have a center-aligned emdash. There are no more empty cells. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Theobald is a disambiguation page. One of the links is dead. Both fixed. Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Arsenikk (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) The article still needs a longer lead. What is there looks good, but I know nothing about turtles (I didn't even know they were also called testudines before reading this list), so someone else needs to do the writing. Even if they just get content down, I can do a copyedit on it. Arsenikk (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep with a sufficiently long lead and all other matters seen to, the article now meets the FL criteria. Nice work all of us. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article will be fine if someone adds an appropriate, well-referenced lead (and perhaps a reference for "Common name(s)"). Mm40 (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm satisfied now; I'll check with the FLC directors and see if they have any concerns, if not then it can be closed. Nice work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Example photo"->"Example image" perhaps. Photo is an abbreviation, and image is more general. Changed. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Capitalisation needs a bit of work to be consistent, I think. You've got "Common Snakeneck Turtle" which redirects to "Common snakeneck turtle" while the Common names seem to have a combination of capital or non-capital T for Turtle/tortoise. Hopefully this is fixed. I capitalized all parts of specific common names, and capitalized the first word of family or generic common names. Note that some families have only one species in them, so the specific common name is used. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Another instance -> Madagascan big-headed or Madagascan Big-headed? It's picky and maybe borderline irrelevant, but to a non-expert the seemingly random capitalisation could use either consistency or an explanation. My fix was to capitalize Madagascan Big-headed Turtle, since it is a specific name, and also to add Big-headed Amazon River Turtle. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Any reason why specific and general references, despite being at the same heading level, are different text sizes? I was unsure of what to do, so I moved the "general" references into a "Further reading" section, and moved the one website into an "External links" section. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Family (biology) appears to be a dab link, as does fenestration.
  • Family (biology) seems fine to me(?), fenestration has been changed to a wiktionary link by user:Kenchikuben. None of the links on the fenestration disambiguation page looked appropriate. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Well is it taxomonic rank or taxon? That's what the dab page says it could be? It's not a major issue as the page does go on to talk about it further I suppose... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• A minor issue, redirects. You have Cheloniidae which redirects to Sea turtle but in the same row you have Green sea turtle which redirects to Green turtle. This is potentially confusing, can we fix this up, including all the other instances of this kind of twin redirect?
  • I'm a bit confused by this. In the example you gave, are you asking for the Green turtle article to be moved to the Green Sea Turtle page? ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I'm saying you have a variety of odd redirects. Redirects are generally not a problem, but clicking on Cheloniidae to get Sea turtle but then Green sea turtle to get Green turtle seems a little misleading to a complete non-expert such a me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Source comment – What makes Encyclopedia of Life (reference 1) a reliable source? It's not a wiki, but it apparently is a collaborative work, like Wikipedia is. Is the listed author an expert in the field? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  The author, Keith Pecor, is an expert on the subject from what I've seen.[4] Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  Since an expert did write the page, I will strike the issue, and I can be considered in the keep column since I didn't notice anything else to comment on. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What is the status on this? The list is very close to being kept, but I'm hesitant to close the nomination when there's a sourcing issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 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 21:03, 14 July 2010 [5].

---

List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners

Notified: NapHit, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the lack of any specific references as well as additional general references besides RSSSF. Most of the lead needs verification of some sort. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I agree this needs some TLC (ref 1 is dead for starters), but there is no set requirement for the number of references, nor is there a requirement for any general referenes. WFC (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But feature material are held to higher standards as they represent wikipedia's best work. The list is nowhere near of meeting the set of standards required of all feature lists; the first criteria is highly questionable and the third is next to non-existant on the list. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the prose could do with work (criteria 1). While I haven't scrutinised them, if anything is unclear in the tables footnotes may be appropriate (if so, criteria 3(a)). But my point on references stands. The UEFA links need fixing, and extra refs would probably be introduced if the lead were expanded. But the requirement is that everything is verified by reliable sources. If a small number of reliable sources were enough to verify everything, there would be no need for any more. WFC (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that everything needs to be verified. The entire table needs references. The lead, which is two paragraphs long, only has ONE reference and that source only backs up one sentence. What about the rest? I know next to nothing about the competition. What is a knock-out tournament? What does it mean when it says "home and away"? Who is Fiorentina? Rangers? Why is "Final" capitalized on the lead? That is just the few things I have found. Feature lists are exemplary because they provide any user, who knows jack crap about the subject, the very basic things to know about what they are reading.

This doesn't even provide the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree that there is scope for improvement. I'll get to work on this one once someone else comments. By the way, in your notification to NapHit, you failed to link directly to the conversation. It surprises me that someone pedantic enough to demand a reference for a capital letter and monosyllabic words would be that careless. WFC (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Update I'm sure any good faith editor will agree that the sourcing for what is currently in the list is now up to standards. I await any further comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with having "good faith" as editors. Everyone here does. It has to do with a FL trying to keep its feature status with mediocre sourcing. You have 39 editions, two paragraphs and all there is to show for it are six references? This is far from being FL material and it clearly doesn't meet criteria 1 and 3 (especially 3) in the basic standards provided for all FL to meet...in other words, it doesn't even meet the basics OF the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contructive comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jamen, FLRC and FLC are not and have never been reference-counting games. Please give specific details on what needs to be improved (e.g. "This sentence needs a citation" or "The lead does not mention X, when it should"); otherwise, I will close this FLRC as a keep within the next few days as all of the actionable issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I am being specific. The entire lead needs referencing or some sort of source. This list needs a lot of work. What is UEFA? What is FA Cup? What do they stand for? What is a knock-out tournament? What do they mean when it says "home and away ties"? Who is Fiorentina? Rangers? Lazio? Real Mallorca? Are those people, places or things? Why is "Final" capitalize in the lead? Is it a noun or else? Why is "reorganisation of its cup competitions" linked to an UEFA's club section that provides no reason as tp the "reorganisation of its cup competitions"? Why was the Cup Winners' Cup abolished?...

...this is simply the first paragraph. As I have said, this entire list needs a lot of work. This has nothing to do about reference-counting; it has to do with everything being verifiable (which I understand is a requirement for all FL if I am not mistaken). The great bulk of this page relies on RSSSF; while a great source, it is stil not an official source of any type and seeing that the external link is dead, there is nothing official backing RSSSF on anything they said. This list is entirely sub-standard of what a FL should be. Fix the above, look over the 2nd paragraph, give references for every edition of the competition (with official backing) and I will come back tomorrow to see if I should retire my FLRN. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All actionable comments addressed. I do not consider the nominator's reference requests to be actionable; references 2 and 4 cover all competitions, and there is no requirement for "official" sources. If anything the RSSSF is a better source than UEFA, as it is independent. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am looking and there has been almost no change in the lead. What does UEFA stand for? Who is Fiorentina, Rangers, Lazio, etc. (i.e. The first competition was won by Italian club Fiorentina who beat Scottish side Rangers...), what is two legs? The list goes on...you have to pretend that you know nothing about the sport and ask yourself those questions. The answer that I left on the UEFA Champions League FLRN section applies here too. Very little has been done. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent, ec) I agree, very little has been done. I have virtually no interest in the subject, other than being a member of WP:FOOTY. I will therefore deal with solveable, actionable requests, and leave anything above and beyond that to people with an interest in European football. Apparently there are a few of them. While it would normally be considered canvassing, I'm more than happy for you to invite other editors in good standing to contribute to this discussion, if you feel that actionable objections have not been met. Regards, WFC (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – It's true that UEFA could be spelled out (in the lead and references), and the lead could perhaps be slightly larger, but I'm failing to see any substantial issues that would require an FLRC. The referencing seems fine to me, keeping in mind that general references are not a bad thing, and that most of the lead's content can also be found in the table, which is cited. I also don't think we need to provide an explanation for every single term in the lead; that's what wikilinks are for. It would be nice to have teams' countries mentioned, but I again don't think an FLRC is needed for such a relatively minor issue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I haven't expanded the lead, per my outdented post above, but I've dealt with the actionable suggestions. WFC (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - There aren't any actionable issues here. FLC does not and never has counted references, everything that needs referencing has been. The nominator's issues surrounding "explanation" are adequately addressed by wikilinks in my opinion. We assume readers have a reasonable amount of intelligence when they read the articles, we don't need to explain every word. In my opinion it still meets the FL criteria. Woody (talk) 17:56, 14 July 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 15:11, 2 July 2010 [6].

---

List of Church of England dioceses

Notified: WikiProject Anglicanism, WikiProject Christianity

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails FL criteria 2 (not much of a lead and all) and has no inline cites. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• The introduction is ten sentences and written in Summary style and seems adequate for the topic. A requirement for inline citations is not one of the criteria for featured lists, and seems unnecessary distraction to readers, as the data is not likely to be disputed. Therefore I would suggest keep. Although I would recommend citations be offered for the territories and years of foundation, that should not affect its Featured List award. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• I have merged several short paragraphs which really didn't need to be separate sections to create one decent length lead, and added a couple of inline citations - I'll work ont he latter further later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's looking good now, though I'll wait to see if the coordinators have any issues with the article remaining an FL. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image fails WP:ACCESS as just yellow or pink is used to denote York or Canterbury. "dioceses were founded. No new dioceses were then created until the middle of the 19th century, when dioceses were founded mainly in response to the growing population, especially in the northern industrial cities. The latest dioceses were created in 1927. The 44 dioceses are divided into two Provinces, the Province of Canterbury (with 30 dioceses) and the Province of York (with 14 dioceses" I know this is about dioceses, but we seem to have repeated the word seven times in this snippet alone... "(see also List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom)." isn't this why we have "See also" sections? Heading should probably be "Diocese (Bishop)" The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) All done bar the image, I'm lousy with image software (plus I can't think how else to designate the two provinces.......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Lacking both the inspiration and the skill to fix the access issue with the image, I have resorted to replacing it with a new one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 1 July 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 15:11, 2 July 2010 [7].

---

List of popes (graphical)

Notified: Dominic, WP Catholicism, WP Vatican City

I am nominating this for featured list removal because this was promoted five years ago this month, and the standards for FL's are quite a bit different than they were back then. At present, my main concern is 3b- that these graphs do not meet the standards of a stand-alone article. There's also some issues with criteria 2 and the referencing, as the lede is very short, and the references are minimal, but both of those could easily be resolved with a few hours work. In my opinion, this list's status as a FL turns on 3B, and my opinion is that it doesn't qualify. Courcelles (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove and could probably be taken to AfD aswell. We recently had another list with similar problems which is on its way to deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. As far as I can see the list is very useful and informative, setting out detailied and often confusing encyclopedic information in an ordered yet visual way. This is the sort of list that in my view is presentationally ideal for an encyclopedia, combining clarity with ease of linking to other articles. As has been said, the information is referenced and is not in dispute. Whether or not it stands alone is a little in the eye of the beholder. Xandar 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep. I think this list meets all the criteria in Featured list criteria and Stand-alone lists. Is the objection that the information on the list duplicates what's found in List of Popes? That's true of the names and dates, but the graphical presentation is useful and unique to this list. A name change to something like "Timeline of Popes" might highlight the list's contribution. --Meyer (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That means that many lists can now by duplicated by the nifty timeline tool. I'm not convinced it's such a great contribution, to duplicate information, as to merit the distinction of being featured. Sandman888 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Delist unless several practical details are attended to... to whit:

• Don't start lists with "This is a list of..." any more.
• Use unspaced en-dashes in year ranges (see WP:DASH for more).
• "depending on whether a source counts Stephen II." not referenced, and pretty important. And poorly worded.
• The image of the list doesn't have the last and current pope on it, worth a note.
• Far too many see alsos. Not convinced at all we need this to link out to "sexually active" popes... And do you really want a link to Template:Popes?!!
• You have three general refs, none of which could possibly cover the last and the current pope.

Not entirely convinced this is even necessary - all the information in this list is covered (in more detail) in List of popes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Delist

• Completely unreferenced lead.
• I presume the three books under references are supposed to be 'general references'. However, they lack any page numbers, so it is impossible to recreate this list without skimming through three entire books. Also, there is no ISBN numbers, making them difficult to locate.
• The lead is poorly written and starts with 'this is graphical list of...'
• There is no explanation at all as to what an antipope is, or why the reign concurrently with other popes.
• Lack of a legend can make it difficult for some people with color blindness to understand which is a pope and an antipope.
• The list is completely redundant in information to List of popes.
• Supreme Pontiff redirect to a disambig page.
• The see also section is a mess and even has a template listed.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Delist

• For reasons given above, but most pertinent is by 3b. This could easily be incorporated into List of popes with a <timeline> or an appropriate template along side the table. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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