Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/September 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 22:10, 24 September 2010 [1].

---

Sugababes discography

Notified: Underneath-it-All, Hotwiki, Mister sparky @actual discography.

The earlier parts of the lead discuss band line-ups, which is why they are referenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be clear on how it fails MOSNUMBER please? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ORDINAL - single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and the style should be kept consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Althought in every GA/FA i've encountered its the norm to spell out numbers 1 to 99 in words. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, took about four seconds. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Okies, I thing most of the issues have been resolved. There is one deadlink in the references, one bare url and sources required for the 'other appearances' section. If those are fixed I will conclude that IMO (and as the user who requested removal) that the discog satisfies FL criteria. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but note that the last two music videos' directors are unreferenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going with keep. The work to improve this has been very impressive and it's certainly not unsalvageable. The remaining concerns obviously need resolving, but they're fairly minor in comparison to what has already been done and are easily addressed through regular editing. While the original issues were serious enough to justify an FLRC, delisitng it now wouldn't be helpful. I have nothing but praise for the editors who have worked on this over the last couple of weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HJ Mitchell's comments and I'm sorry because they're things I should have said too as the person who nominated for removal in the first place. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

FWiW, I think you were totally justified in nominating it for removal, but, thanks to the efforts of the editors who've worked to save it, I don't think there are any outstanding concerns serious enough to warrant removal. My comment wasn't a criticism of you. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no HJ, don't worry about it, I didn't take it as personal critism. There were genuine concerns and those have been addressed. I echo you're comments in thanking those who've contributed to fix the article which, now is more or less a featured list IMO. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that it's received more care and attention through being listed removal than it has probably since its original FLC! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been told to respond, although my comments have not received any attention. The ladt two music videos' directors lack references, and the Dutch chart column in 'As featured artist' section is too. Once these things are cleaned up I will be happy to keep it as a FL. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see what I can do. A very quick search turns up this, though I'm far from certain of its reliability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's also this. I'll see if I can find editors more familiar with the subject matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep, no major issues outstanding, good work to all concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have spotted a NZ gold cert for "Push the Button" at [2], but as the row is quite high, it probably doesn't need to be included. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I referenced the music video director, and returned the Dutch chart in the featured singles section. I will change to neutral. The 'Other appearances' section confuses me a bit. Why are the featured singles repeated here? Why are some referenced, but not others? [sorry for not picking this up earlier:)] Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep looks fine now. Nergaal (talk) 10:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 07:30, 15 September 2010 [3].

---

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries

Notified: Conscious, WikiProject Football

In these World Cup days I came across what I was hoping would be a thrilling list, but was rather dismayed. There are several key concerns:

• The lead uses half its space in defining UEFA and who are members, instead of quickly defining it and discussing the leagues and teams. The prose is not enganging and needs to be longer. Also, the key needs to be seperated and more structured. The first sentence is obsolete. (fails criteria 1 and 2)
• Referencing, if it can be called that, is a mess. Four general pages are provided, all with access dates from 2006, yet the article is up to date as of the 2010–11 season. Of the links, I was only able to navigate myself to this seasons tables via the UEFA link, but not the other ones. There should be at least one reference for each table.
  • Done cites up to Latvia so far, will do the rest but its too mind-numbing for a single sitting. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Quite a number of the tables sort wrong, i.e. the are alphabetized wrong by default or the sort key alphabetizes incorrectly. (fails criteria 4)
• I was under the impression that flagicons (i.e. images) in headers will wreck the syntax in some browsers, but havn't been able to verify this 100%. Similarly for links in headers.
  • Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• I am uncertain if the term "city" is acurate; for instance, the list claims 11 "cities" in the Faroe Island, an area with less than 50,000 people. See for instance Eiði with its 669 residents. Perhaps "location" is better.
  • Changed to Town or City, Location seemed too vague to me. There might be the odd village, but the meaning is clear enough I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Surely there must be some suitable way to illustrate this, beyond a simple map. There is loads of space down the right, an image from selected teams would improve this list a lot. (fails criteria 5b)
  • To compensate for the fact that this is a fun job, I'm starting with the difficult countries. Obviously I can and will add more, but what do you think about the general balance of images I'm adding? WFC (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• There are five disambiguation links.
  • Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Ideally you would revamp each section to something like this with a reference next to the As of... and maybe a map of where the clubs are. However this would take a lot of work. I could help out if others were prepared do put in a fair bit of work to, but I couldn't do it all on my own. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed with the FL. This whole page is rather redundant when we already have several templates and links this same information. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Reminder, this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Thinking of something else. Either way, it is still a redundant page that simply bring different pieces of information in one article...when we already have separate articles for each page. If it where like this two] lists I could understand but... Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I had minor involvement in getting this list to FLC the first time around. Busy busy busy right now, but over the coming week I'll look at revamping it. Oldelpaso (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I have a serious question...how did this page even become a FL?! I have had a list that has been screwed with to death for almost two months and nothing. This one only has seven references in total and, presto! We are upgrading you to FL status...what is this??!! Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is obviously a different kind of list which was considered complete at the time of its promotion to FL status. --MicroX (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This list was promoted in 2006. The standards then were quite different. At both FLC and FAC, over time there has been a steady increase in the standard required. In 2006 this genuinely was an example of Wikipedia's best work. In 2010, perhaps not so much. That's what this process is here to address. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove – The lead and referencing, which were noted as problems in the nomination statement, seemingly remain so. Just doesn't seem like the page's structure holds up to modern standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment below is completely true. The list already looks quite a bit better, though some work still remains. I'd like to recommend that the directors hold this one for a while to allow for further improvements; we must be understanding that the fixes required here are quite time-consuming. If the list can be saved, then the extra time is well worth it. As for the current state, just having the photos and maps gives the list much more life. One quick suggestion: City should be de-capitalized in each of the many tables since it isn't a proper noun. That should be among the less work-extensive fixes that can be done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Leave open - I entirely share Giants' concerns, but I'm extremely impressed with the work that has been done on referencing and verifying this. So much so that I'm going to chip in as well. This certainly won't be a quick or easy save, but the will seems to be there. WFC (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm getting through this at a better pace than I had anticipated; half way there, ignoring the fact that I've already done some random bits in the second half. A few questions though. Firstly, Oldelpaso asked me on the talk page if it would be possible to restore the bold text for champions in addition to the yellow, as colour alone is not compatible with text-based browsers such as Lynx. I'm fine with that, but I was under the impression that bolding is depreciated? Secondly, I'm leaving some of the sorting until last. With some of the countries I'm not sure if I should sort by the very common first word. Taking Israel as an example, I personally would have ignored Maccabi and Hapoel for sort purposes. But the list didn't do that before, so I thought I'd open it up to comments before doing a lot of work needlessly. Finally, I know I'm making work for myself here, but does anyone think it's worth noting newly promoted clubs (where applicable)? --WFC-- 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, bolding is discouraged now, at least according to MOS:BOLD. Italics can always be used as a substitute, if this turns into a sticking point. The work so far looks good in general. One more thing while I'm here: reference 26 shouldn't have all caps in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the reply. --WFC-- 08:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• keep tho RSSSF refs need author and date. Tedious work. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments WFC asked if I'd pop over and have a look. It's certainly improved since people started working on it, well done... Few quick comments, haven't got time for a thorough review, sorry:

• Agree with Sandman re author(s)/publication date for the RSSSF refs. If he had to do it for the Barcelona lists...
  • I agree. I'm not ignoring it, just waiting as long as possible. As Oldelpaso hinted above, it's a tedious job. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Also, it'd be nice if the foreign-language references had the trans_title parameter completed (where it isn't obvious)
• Also, it'd be helpful for the reader wanting to know where the information came from, if incomprehensible (to us semi-literate Brummies, anyway) foreign-language publishers e.g. Fótbóltssamband Føroya were either linked to their WP article or translated in parentheses (Faroe Islands Football Association)
• What makes the general references World Football Organisation and eufo.de reliable sources? assuming you're still using them for anything
• If it was me, I'd move the note about TNS/Llansantffraid/etc into the Wales section, as was done with the AS Monaco/France one, rather than leaving it in a general Notes section. That particular note's probably visible from its table anyway, but in general, it's kinder to the reader if they can see a section-specific note without having to click down to a Notes section and then back up to where they were.
• In Albania, as of 2010-11 season, what's the asterisk for?

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll carry on methodically (one country at a time so that there is visible progress, to keep my chin up as much as anything else!). But I agree with pretty much all of that. Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note to directors Work is ongoing. I made a request here for help with the lead. You may want to bear this in mind if there is a sudden flurry of !votes. Regards, --WFC-- 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. As long as work is on-going then this can run (and run and run)... It does already appear that there's no consensus for a delisting, but the continuing improvements are well worth keeping the FLRC open for. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. As an aside, I know that FL has a few detractors, but FLRC in particular is productive and efficient. Even when people take on a major, protracted job like this, we tend to get the job done quicker here than elsewhere. Point-y nominations aside, the end result almost always justifies the effort. --WFC-- 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Close? It seems fine to me now, no need to let people read all this stuff. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• All looks good to me now, I dealt with a couple of typos but I couldn't see any issues when compared to the FL criteria. Looking at how it first passed and at the beginning of this review it looks a lot better. Well done to everyone involved. Woody (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and motion to close. While the original list was not up to standards, the current version is infinitely better. Great work, it's night and day. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep looks a lot better than when it came here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks significantly better. Well done to all involved. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and second move to close. Courcelles 23:37, 14 September 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 03:54, 10 September 2010 [4].

---

List of Naruto characters

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it violates the policy WP:PRIMARY, which states that articles cannot be based only on primary sources. There is extremely little independent verification of the information included in this article - simply references to the anime/manga itself and amazon.com pages. This falls short of the requirements of WP:FL?. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All primary sources? There is a whole reception section with non-primary sources.Tintor2 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one section out of five which has citations to independent sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The criteria says to follow the Manual of Style and the anime/manga manual state we have to use primary sources to cite in-universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a conflict between the MoS and WP:NOR then. I presume the instruction not to "base articles entirely on primary sources" is violated by an article which bases the main subject of the article (in-universe Naruto) on primary sources. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no conflict. Facts and events directly stated or displayed by a primary source can be cited to the primary source. WP:NOR simply states that any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims cannot be based on primary sources and requires a secondary, or third-party, source. Now if you can identify any specific analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims made in the article that isn't attributed to a third-party source, I'm sure that other editors will fix or remove them. However, your claimed reason for delisting, lack of third-party sources, has already been refuted by references 2–6 and 134—136. —Farix (t | c) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Close to per WP:SNOW. PRIMARY applies to the article as a whole, not specific sections.陣内_Jinnai 04:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note The editor who started this FLRC has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. —Farix (t | c) 11:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Close per WP:SNOW Blocked user and bad faith removal request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:47, 8 September 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 19:03, 6 September 2010 [5].

---

List of birds of Cuba

Notified: User:Yomangani, WikiProject Birds

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has no inline references. Snek01 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the least of its problems. With its two references is there really any problem with ascertaining where the information came from? Inline citations where appropriate, likely to be challenged, blah blah. Yomangani^talk 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist Comment The information in the body of the article is covered by the general references given at the bottom of the article, so inline citations would probably be redundant. That said, what makes those two sources reliable? Also, the lead needs to be beefed up a bit (have a look at recently promoted bird lists). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to delist, no attempt made to address my comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Dabomb's comments above still remain unanswered. The lead is really in a poor state right now.--Cheetah (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards delist unless someone can convince me of the reliability of the sources. Everything else, like the skinny lead, can be addressed fairly easily without the need for delisting, but reliability of sources is a pretty fundamental issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist, per comment by User:HJ Mitchell above. --Snek01 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. The first source might be okay if we can find anything noting it (I'll take a look) but that second source to me does not look reliable. 50% doesn't cut it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

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