Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2022
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Keep
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the episode list was merged to the main article and this article is now a redirect. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Another_WP:FL_One-Season List of Episodes That Should Be Merged... Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support should never have been split off per MOS:TVSPLIT. One season's worth of episode is not enough to justify a separate list of episodes article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support delisting — Pretty sure an implicit criteria for an FL is that the page has to exist on its own, and I don't see this merge being undone. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. There was a time when single-season shows had separate episode lists, such as List of Highlander: The Raven episodes which was a FL at one point, but times have changed. I agree that the separate list is not necessary, and it is only 16 episodes so it is not an amount that would overwhelm the article. It would likely be more beneficial for readers anyway to include this information on the show article rather than having them navigate to separate list just for a 16-episode season. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 16 October 2022 (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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Michael Jackson, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, original nominator: User:Pyrrhus16, notable contributors to the article: User:Reelcase, User:Bobimj, User:The Rambling Man and User talk:Popcornfud
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I find it hard to believe that we consider this the best in what we have to offer when it comes to lists. Although the topic is certainly worthy there are numerous issues such as:
- choice of colours used to highlight the songs are not WP:ACCESSIBLE (HELP:COLOR)
- some songs are tagged with 1993 deposition but this isn't mentioned in the prose or explained anywhere
- Some songs are highlighted as both deposition and registered with the US copright office - so what? What's the relevance.
- Quality of referencing isn't always strong for example Discogs is used which is unreliable as its user generated, there's bare references prone to LinkRot, there's no archiving of the sources
- I find it hard to believe that all of the "facts" about the songs are included in the source(s) such as alternative names for the songs, the specific details of how complete the songs are or are not, who sings what verse etc.
- At least one non-sourced entry
- Lots speculation such as "A demo version/mono acetate is known to exist" and "Original full-length demo of "I Am A Loser" leaked onto the internet in September 2013"
The list goes on. Its full of speculation, poorly sourced and possibly synthesised material, no navigational aids like anchors to jump to different parts of the list by letter and poor prose such as "This list, however, only documents the songs explicitly cited as unreleased and therefore does not contain every unreleased Jackson song registered with such bodies"
which makes no sense.
>> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. All the speculation and poor sourcing means this is not FA-worthy. Popcornfud (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait a month. If all of these issues are resolvable, and they are, what is the point of delisting? Why not just fix the existing issues? Wouldn’t delisting be too much of an intrusive next steps for such minor issues? There are some claims above that are just not true. There is no synthesized material, the sources are not that bad and also easily replaceable, delisting is such an extreme and awkward next step when no one has even attempted to fix the issues. Fix the issues, it really is that simple. If while fixing the issues it’s concluded that they for whatever reason can’t be fixed, then consider delisting. I will never understand why editors will point out fixable issues and decide to take the most extreme step, than just spending time to fix it. It doesn’t make sense.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you disagree about my assessment of the sourcing and and synthesis of material. Had I access to the publications (the books) I would have gone through and verified all of the claims in this article. For example some of the songs listed as sourced from Michael Jackson: For the Record seem to have lots of detailed information available but other times its just the song and the writers. That aside, layout and accessibility do not meet the standards of FL. There are some really poor sources here like onmymjfootsteps which half the content is dead and is a fansite. There's no evidence as to who the owner Rachel or, or what her credentials are that mean this website is reliable. The inclusion of the 1993 deposition isn't even mentioned in the lead or what the significance of the songs mentioned here were. There are lots of unsourced or unverified claims like
Rough vocal demo known to exist.
for the song "Bomb Detonation". "Get Your Weight Off of Me" has a tonne of information about it that isn't in the source, speculation about other names of the song (WP:FANCRUFT) etc, not forgetting to mention its a retail source. I could go on but there's a lot of issues meaning the article requires a complete re-write. The reason I am requesting a de-list is that it was previously listed for delisting and some of these issues have prevailed without being addressed. In its current format, it would not pass and ascend to FL status without an entire copy edit and re-write. Its also telling that none of the other articles in the Category:Lists of unreleased songs by recording artists category are FL. It would be worrying to keep this as an FL in its current state as it sets the standard for other similar articles and its a waste of everyone's time if other unreleased songs lists got nominated because they copied this style and format which clearly isn't FL standards. You are saying you don't understand why editors spend time pointing out fixable issues - this is akin to saying there's no point having a delisting process. FLs need to be maintained not just high quality once to pass the review. Its also about the knock on impact and how they end up being viewed by the wider editor base. Sorry you disagree with my assessment but I do think its harmful more than anything to wider quality standards across these types of articles to keep this an FL even if it could be fixed (we can disagree on the size of the job). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for your reply. I want to make clear that I agree in its current form the article does not meet FA. No question about that. I do have access to some of the sources. However, all I am saying is that if I am wearing a nice shirt and it get food stain on it, I wouldn’t just throw it away. I would try to wash it to get the stain out. Then if I could not get the stain out, then consider throwing it away or replacing it. The article needs work. No question. I would like to see an effort put forth in fixing the issues first. If not fixed in a month, I’ll support downgrading. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can get behind that. Tbf if it had improved significantly since the last nomination I wouldn't have bothered nominating. It is an issue with any FA or FL article tbh. There are occasions where the original nominator doesn't continue monitoring it or the community allows it to fall into disrepair. Its compromise I'd support if someone wants to have a go at improving it but after a month, if it appears that no one cares enough then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. I want to make clear that I agree in its current form the article does not meet FA. No question about that. I do have access to some of the sources. However, all I am saying is that if I am wearing a nice shirt and it get food stain on it, I wouldn’t just throw it away. I would try to wash it to get the stain out. Then if I could not get the stain out, then consider throwing it away or replacing it. The article needs work. No question. I would like to see an effort put forth in fixing the issues first. If not fixed in a month, I’ll support downgrading. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you disagree about my assessment of the sourcing and and synthesis of material. Had I access to the publications (the books) I would have gone through and verified all of the claims in this article. For example some of the songs listed as sourced from Michael Jackson: For the Record seem to have lots of detailed information available but other times its just the song and the writers. That aside, layout and accessibility do not meet the standards of FL. There are some really poor sources here like onmymjfootsteps which half the content is dead and is a fansite. There's no evidence as to who the owner Rachel or, or what her credentials are that mean this website is reliable. The inclusion of the 1993 deposition isn't even mentioned in the lead or what the significance of the songs mentioned here were. There are lots of unsourced or unverified claims like
Well, it's been two months, and most of the edits since then have been editors adding more unsourced statements. @TruthGuardians: do you plan on working on this list? If not, then I think this will need to be delisted. --PresN 02:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for tagging me in this. I completely forgotten all about it. It can be delisted for now. I can work on it in its delisted state then request re-list TruthGuardians (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted. --PresN 13:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Notified: Nobody (I really don't know who to notify)
This list is nominated for featured list removal (mainly) because of failing to meet attribute 2 of WP:FLCR. The lead of the list is too short for a featured list (even for a featured list of the same type like List of Braathens destinations). It is also notable that there are some (permanent) dead links in the references which may also indicate its failure to meet attribute 3b of WP:FLCR (although it may not be a main point). Sanmosa Outdia 06:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – the lead is awful and fails to provide sufficient context for the list. I don't know why it was changed so much from how it passed FLC, but this is wildly different and does not meet FL requirements. Notifying Aviator006, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Hong Kong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123: Looks like the whole lead section was deleted by a single edit back in November 2019. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Thank you RunningTiger123 for the notification and I can see that another user has re-updated/replaced the lead. The deadlinks are because the airline has now defuncted and merged to the parent company, Cathay Pacific, perhaps the links should be checked and linked against archives instead. Nevertheless, the list still demonstrates a level of standard a featured list should or aim to be. Aviator006 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of those links do not seem to have proper archives; in many cases, the archived pages seem to just redirect to old route booking pages. I also have issues with the inclusion criteria for items on the list – the introduction says the list includes all passenger routes that were being flown when the airline shut down, but then it includes several routes that were "terminated", i.e., not being flown at that time. The lead was the most obvious issue at first, but I still support delisting due to issues with sourcing and inclusion criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just run IABot. Seems fine, not checked one by one though. Sun8908 Talk 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- IABot isn't always accurate; sometimes the archived pages don't have the same information as when they were added, and a few lead to completely different pages (compare the URL for source 46 to the archived link as an example). The new IABot links in particular seem to be bad, which makes sense since the Cathay Dragon website doesn't exist now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the permanent dead links can be replaced. Sun8908 Talk 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just run IABot. Seems fine, not checked one by one though. Sun8908 Talk 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of those links do not seem to have proper archives; in many cases, the archived pages seem to just redirect to old route booking pages. I also have issues with the inclusion criteria for items on the list – the introduction says the list includes all passenger routes that were being flown when the airline shut down, but then it includes several routes that were "terminated", i.e., not being flown at that time. The lead was the most obvious issue at first, but I still support delisting due to issues with sourcing and inclusion criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Brush up per Aviator006 and keep. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, if the list needs to be "brushed up", that implies it's not currently in a suitable state for FL status. We shouldn't say "it will probably get better, so we should keep it"; if it's not good now, it should be delisted until it returns to FL quality. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, it means its current state is still good for FL but it's better to improve it according to what Aviator006 suggested. I think what I said was clear enough. Please do not distort to make a point. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is a defunct airline, the destinations would require as a column date ranges (when Cathay Dragon flew those routes, instead of "notes"), or are we to assume that these were the routes at the end when they merged? But that doesn't make sense since some are listed as "terminated". Either way, Delist until this issue is resolved. The lead could use more information as well (what was/were the first routes, when did they start flying, etc..) Mattximus (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open a long time, with split opinions on delisting or keeping. Normally that would default to keeping, but in looking through the article I don't feel that the list is FL quality. As others have mentioned, routes are listed as "Terminated" without saying when they stopped, apparently the cargo routes in general were also terminated but it doesn't say when, it doesn't say when any of these routes started, "Charter" is both a column option and a superscript tag, its just assumed readers know when "Seasonal" refers to, and the lead, though now existing, is still anemic and gives insufficient context. There's a lot to be done here, so I'm giving less weight to the keep votes, who beyond voting don't seem to have done much to improve the list in response to issues. I'll leave this open for another week, but if nothing changes I'll delist it. --PresN 01:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted. --PresN 13:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.