Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2008
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 21:45, 30 October 2008 [1].
Notified: WikiProject Pro Wrestling
I am nominating this page because of the reliable sourcing criteria. Most of the sources the page relies on, "Shining Road", "PuroLove.com" and "TitleHistories.com" seem to be rather questionable. Some of these sources have been deemed unuseable on FAs, so why should it be any different here? -- Scorpion0422 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article could use much better sourcing, not to mention it is a combination of a list and a regular article. Sure it uses good grammer, but it needs to be split into 2 articles, AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship and List of AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Champions. If it is, I will nominate it a start class article. Altenhofen (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it need to be split? A list is supposed to be introduced with prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove unless sources are changed to reliable ones and some prose is added, if possible. iMatthew (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: it might be considered bad form to vote to delist an article from a project with which you have a current grudge. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems unwarranted. His recent contribs show edits to the project space and articles under the project's scope that don't show a "grudge". Even if there is one, AGF that he can separate it from identifying something that may not meet current FL criteria Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, leaning towards delist. I completely agree that Purolove.com is very questionable in terms of reliability. Shining Road, another source the article relies on fairly heavily, is a deadlink. My main concern, however, is the short lead. The leads in featured lists usually consist of a few paragraphs, nowadays. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 21:45, 30 October 2008 [2].
Notified: Space and Human Spaceflight WikiProjects.
I hadn't planned on nominating this one, but I noticed that it had several {{Unreferenced}} templates, which isn't acceptable in featured content. There are several unsourced sections and the lead needs to be improved. Also, according to the page, the last time any of the main references was accessed was 2005, so this should be updated. -- Scorpion0422 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove for being under-referenced. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. The List of ISS spacewalks was removed recently for being under-referenced, and it had far more references than this list does at the time it was removed, and unlike this list, it contained no information that cannot be confirmed. This list is not only barely sourced, but it is also very out of date with regards to the flight statistics, and there is no way to verify the statistics currently given. It also fails nearly every single WP:WIAFL criteria: The lead is not up to MOS standards, the prose is not professional, nor does it flow well, it has no "structure" or sections to guide a reader, it is not visually pleasant, it is unsourced, it does not use proper punctuation, it is not comprehensive (many missions simply say "ISS mission"), and probably has many more MOS issues. Ariel♥Gold 09:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove for shortage of citations. Would be great to see this brought back up again. DurovaCharge! 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove minimum sources and reference templates doesn't make a very good Featured list. iMatthew (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 21:45, 30 October 2008 [3].
- Notified: WP:USPREZ. I can't tell who originally nominated the list to FLC, either from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States/archive1, or its history. :(
With the new criteria, the Lead is a little inadequate now. Two paragraphs to define the scope and inclusion criteria, but nothing to actually say what the US president is. I don't mean his constitutional duties, but what it means to be President, what the position is, to provide even the basic context for the non-US reader. Lead needs to summarize the page, too. Currently there is nothing to say how many Presidents there have been, who was the first, and who is the current. Other information, such as how long a person is President for (usually a term of four years), who has held consecutive terms, who has held office more than once (separately), who has died while in office. etc. I don't propose a rehash of President of the United States, or what the president does, but an overview of the presidents themselves.
Two other minor things are that the table could do with being sortable if it's possible -- not sure if it is because of the colspans, and the period after the S in Harry S. Truman. According to Harry S. Truman#Truman's middle initial, it is not used by the Official White House biography, and Truman didn't care either way, but I'm not sure if that should even be discussed here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure with a little attention this timely list could easily be saved. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to maintain
- Right, I have real knowledge of Presidents or of the U.S.for that matter but I feel that this is a historically important list and so I will try and maintain its featured status. I have tried to address things like what the president is, length of term, and a summary of the list in the lead. I hope what I have put is correct but may need someone to check as I don't really know of the technical details of the job description or the election process. Anyway I think I've done most of the stuff you've said is there anything else that needs bringing up to current FL standards. I don't think this can be made sortable without the loss of either term of president number information but if any table wizards have any bright ideas on what could be done please say.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to make the opening clearer as to what the President is. I have also included a mention of the racially and genderly (because I don't want to say sexually) significant tickets this November. I'm not sure whether the word President should be capitalized or not; please make that uniform. Also, the syntax for the next president (make one for each party) should be prepared in comment brackets. (<!-- -->)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- think the race/gender thing would be better at United States presidential election, 2008 wrt to the new president. This is a list of past and current presidents, and gender and race has no effect on this list, since they've all been white and male. There's also no need to make syntax for the new president, who won't be president for another 3-and-a-bit months. The page is already a target for vandalism, and the temptation to remove the <!-- --> is too great. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so we can leave out current election data until we know a winner, though I think it's worth mentioning they've all been white and male. From what I gather from the comments above, nobody has much of an issue with the list (other than sortability), just the lead. It'll survive.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. But the process isn't just to bring up things that are blatantly wrong. Does it meet the rest of the criteria? Does the table need formatting differently? If you've got any issues with the list in any way, now's the place to raise them. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so we can leave out current election data until we know a winner, though I think it's worth mentioning they've all been white and male. From what I gather from the comments above, nobody has much of an issue with the list (other than sortability), just the lead. It'll survive.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made President consitently capitalised - I am not sure if it is correct but that is the style used in the President of the United States page.
- Wrt Harry Truman, "S." or "S"? - I don't see any point in going to something different as the Harry S. Truman page. If that page (a FA) moves its name to "Harry S Truman" then we should follow that trend, but it has been previously discussed there.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can try to bring it up to the standards of the various governor lists I've made, but it would require a bit of a rewrite. I'm hesitant to do it right off, but I'm willing to. IMO, it should look more similar to List of Governors of Alabama, with the specific information on terms, length, succession, and the term sizes, though maybe we want to keep the term number on the right as it is now (though it doesn't seem as useful...) It definitely needs better footnoting, what is there now is pretty bad, and pretty ancient. And it needs better sourcing. But I've done a little reformatting to prep it for any future changes. --Golbez (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the current status of the list right now? Is it being worked on, or has it been left for dead? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's been left for dead. It's also protected against editing right now. That is an automatic fail for GA, and I think it should be here, too. Matthewedwards 20:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing comments. Nomination has been open for 30 days. It's protected from editing, relies upon two inline citations and two generic ones. No consensus to keep. Matthewedwards 21:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by User:Gonzo fan2007 03:43, 21 October 2008 [4].
Notified: catholicism and Christianity WikiProjects.
This is one of the oldest FLs and as the process has improved, this one has stayed the same. My biggest issue is sourcing. There are no citations at all and no online sources and several sections with no sources such as "Ages of popes" (btw, could that be merged into the main table?) and "Religious Orders" (again, could this somehow be merged with the main table? A new column isn't necessary, it could just be added to the notes). I know books are usually much more reliable, but for a topic like this there's got to be at least one reliable source out there with a list. Also the lead could use polishing. -- Scorpion0422 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Fails multiple WP:WIAFL criteria. This list may have been FL material under the older criteria, but it is not now. The layout of the WP:LS does not comply with the WP:MOS, with the lead image to the left in the middle of the LS, it is visually distracting and unappealing. Popes are some of the most historically documented, and written about people in the entire world, so I fail to understand why not one single inline citation is in the entire list, and there are only 3 sources given at all (and two of them are not in English!) This is really unacceptable for the English Wikipedia. Additionally, the "Ages of popes" as a separate section, isn't part of the list. I agree that these could be merged into the main list. The same goes with the "Oldest" and "Youngest" sections. The sections on Religious orders and numbering should be moved into the prose of the lead section, instead of in sections of their own. It is a combination article/list the way it is. I would also suggest using a TOC limiter to shorten the giant whitespace under the lead. It also has something funky going on with borders, they are showing up only in parts of the page, and broken in others. Ariel♥Gold 09:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per nom. DurovaCharge! 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by User:Gonzo fan2007 03:43, 21 October 2008 [5].
- Notified: Howard the Duck, WP Tambayan Phillipines
The major problem is the sourcing. No information can be verified. The lead, the list, and the notes need sources. There are two general references, but one is a dead link and the other is just the main page of the official website of the President. Ir also fails criteria 1 and 2 of our main criteria.--Crzycheetah 21:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Howard the Duck and WP Tambayan Phillipines notified. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both links are live. Where is the dead link? As for the lead they can be easily referenced so I'll be working on that... –Howard the Duck 04:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and leads aren't really supposed to have footnotes, right? The only statements that should be referenced are the 4th and 5th paragraphs. –Howard the Duck 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and leads aren't really supposed to have footnotes, right?" It depends on the information given in the lead. If it is anything that is a supposition, or anything that could be challenged as WP:OR, yes, it should have a source given for it. For example, the fourth intro paragraph, The First Republic and the Second Republic are not a part of the existing Constitutional succession (begun in 1935), and as such not counted in the order of terms. should be sourced, IMO, and I would find sources for the final paragraph as well, personally. I would also suggest that using inline citations (see WP:FOOT, WP:CIT, and {{reflist}} if you're unsure how these work). Ariel♥Gold 09:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dealt with footnotes in the past so I should know how they should work. I'll be getting refs for third, fourth and sixth paragraphs. –Howard the Duck 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.