Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/September 2015
- 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 PresN 18:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: Jimknut, WikiProject United States
I am nominating this featured list because I feel like it doesn't meet FL criteria's anymore and It has been six years since it passed. The whole table is unsourced and doesn't have a sort. Lead needs to be rewritten. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has now been made sortable and extensive citations have been added. What do you find wrong with the lead? Jimknut (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel it needs a little bit of expansion but as you have provided citations and sort, it is suitable for FL now. Please try to add citations in every FL you have worked. I withdraw the nomination. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLRC as kept then. --PresN 18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- Notified: Sufur222, WikiProject Discographies
Nominating for removal due to many issues I've found (some which were worryingly present when the list was promoted). More specifically:
- Article is plagued with dead links, specifically, 7 dead links.
His first Studio album I Need A Bag of Dope isn't referenced.- His sixth Studio album Rich Life isn't referenced.
- Between As lead artist and As featured artist, a grand toal of seventeen singles without independent articles are not referenced to prove they are singles, as opposed to songs that had strong downloads and charted. twenty-three singles listings that have independent article are also not referenced. However, it shouldn't be ok for listings with articles to be without reference, for example, Stuntin' Like My Daddy's article doesn't give reference that it's a single either.
This is probably the biggest one for me, there's a lot of three figure numbers in singles tables. There's only 100 spaces on the Billboard Hot 100 (if you couldn't guess from the name) yet I see "118" and "109", there's a note that explains the songs charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, however the 25 places on the bubbling under are not a direct extension, and the placing should have a "—" with the note next to it, as opposed to having the note next to the songs title, for some reason.- Similar to above, a lot of songs listed as above 50 in regards to the "US R&B" collumn. The name references the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, which as 50 places, yet I'm seeing "73", "65", "71". Some of these are explained in notes next to the songs titles, others are not. The main reference in the column does not cover the +50 places, thus needing additional citation.
- 3 references in the Notes section are dead, but for some reason don't appear in the checklinks analysis.
At this point I'd probably give it the old "Article has come a long way since its promotion in 2012", but most of these issues were present when it was promoted. Azealia911 talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for notifying me about this. As the original submitter of the page to FL status, it concerns me that no one stopped to tell me these things during the original submission, although admittedly I've neglected it somewhat in recent times. I'll get everything fixed ASAP. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I appreciate it. Azealia911 talk 15:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvements seem to be being made to the article, and while it's not the best article on Wikipedia, I'm now satisfied that it meets the relevant criteria. Sufur222, thankyou for getting on my comments and improving the article. Withdrawing FLRC. Azealia911 talk 03:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, Azealia911. I sincerely apologise for the very slow speed at which the improvements have been made, but unfortunately real life has taken precedent over the last month. I'll continue to act on your comments when I can. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be silly, no need to apologize at all. Real life always comes first. Cheers, Azealia911 talk 14:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, Azealia911. I sincerely apologise for the very slow speed at which the improvements have been made, but unfortunately real life has taken precedent over the last month. I'll continue to act on your comments when I can. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given there are still a few issues that are being worked on, do you two want me to leave this FLRC open for now for tracking or go ahead and close it and just take it to the talk page, given that the nom asked to withdraw? @Azealia911 and Sufur222: --PresN 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: You can go ahead and close this. I have complete faith in Sufur222 that they will address all the comments made here. Thanks, Azealia911 talk 17:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 PresN 16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Massachusetts
Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.
With absolutely no inline citations, it is assumed that the content of this list is all backed up the information provided in five references provided at the bottom of the article, but this is unclear. Harrias talk 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's been 2.5 months, and none of the 4 bird FLRCs have gotten any delist votes, and most have had very little discussion at all. While there may be issues with the lists, the nominations can't keep hanging around here forever, so I'm going to go ahead and close all 4 as keep. --PresN 16:49, 5 September 2015 (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 kept by PresN 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Kansas
Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.
This article has precisely one inline citation, which is in the "fictional" section at the bottom of the list. The rest of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point there. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, and less reader annoying to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's been 2.5 months, and none of the 4 bird FLRCs have gotten any delist votes, and most have had very little discussion at all. While there may be issues with the lists, the nominations can't keep hanging around here forever, so I'm going to go ahead and close all 4 as keep. --PresN 16:49, 5 September 2015 (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 kept by PresN 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Florida
Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.
This list has a decent lead, but all the inline citations provided in the article are within that lead. A bibliography is provided, but there is no indication which, if any, sources back up the main body of the list, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's been 2.5 months, and none of the 4 bird FLRCs have gotten any delist votes, and most have had very little discussion at all. While there may be issues with the lists, the nominations can't keep hanging around here forever, so I'm going to go ahead and close all 4 as keep. --PresN 16:49, 5 September 2015 (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 kept by PresN 16:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Egypt, WikiProject Africa
Following on from the recent removal of a few similar lists, these are a few more that I think fall well below our current FL standards. Each starts "This is a list of..." contrary to our guidelines, and feature very few inline citations.
This list has an extremely short lead, which can not possibly summarise the content of the article, and all four inline citations provided are in that lead. The bulk of the article is presumably all covered by "General" references. Harrias talk 14:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know nothing about FL process, honestly. Two questions: 1) Wouldn't it be way more efficient to just fix the lead wording than to launch a removal process? It probably took more time to describe the problem in the lead than to reword it. What is the wording problem? (Well, that's question 1A). 2) How is a lead supposed to summarize a list, more than introducing it? Is there a checklist of some sort? Understand the citation problem of course. What's the timeframe? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Hello? Anyone? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't notice the reply here. In response to your questions:
- Maybe it would, but to be honest I'm not particularly bothered about the lists, and that issue is very much the tip of the iceberg. I could fix that, but the list would still be far from featured quality.
- Although still not an ideal article, List of birds of Thailand gives an idea of how the lead can provide more useful information, and something of a summary of the content, rather than simply a dry, rather meaningless introduction which is more akin to a key. Harrias talk 13:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified WT:BIRDS about what's expected from the lead. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: To centralize discussion, I'm excerpting something you'd written on another of these (and which is consistent with what you wrote on several more):
The [bulk] of the article, and the lead, is presumably sourced to the three general references provided, though it is unclear, falling well below our standards for verifiability. Harrias talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
'- Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article was used to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point in including inline citations in those cases. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, less reader-annoying, and much less wasted productivity to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. Surely the featured list process accounts for such things? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your argument, and it is a reasonably fair one. My issue at the moment is that it simply isn't immediately apparent what comes from where; you might know, but the article gives little indication of it. Look at the bottom part of WP:MINREF for an idea of what I mean. Harrias talk 15:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since almost all of the entries came from one of the sources, an alphabetical work on birds, and the rest came from another one of same, what could possibly be the use in adding a large number of redundant citations? Where the taxonomy article was used to source a few reclassified scientific names, I could see the point in including inline citations in those cases. But for the other two sources, it would seem more practical, no less verifiable, less reader-annoying, and much less wasted productivity to just state at the topic that the list is based on the catalogued species listing in ref 1 and ref 2. Surely the featured list process accounts for such things? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's been 2.5 months, and none of the 4 bird FLRCs have gotten any delist votes, and most have had very little discussion at all. While there may be issues with the lists, the nominations can't keep hanging around here forever, so I'm going to go ahead and close all 4 as keep. --PresN 16:49, 5 September 2015 (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 PresN 15:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]
Nominating this list per it's lack of sourcing throughout. Specifically:
- Music videos
- In the Director(s) column, several listings contain "N/A", which is not only untemplated, but also unexplained.
- In the Director(s) column, several listings contain no director at all for unexplained reasons.
- A total of 19 entries are unreferenced.
- Filmography
- A total of 3 entries are unreferenced.
- Video albums
- The listing Making of Michael Jackson's Thriller is unreferenced.
- The listing HIStory World Tour: Live in Seoul is unreferenced.
- The listing Michael Jackson's This Is It is unreferenced.
- The listing Bad 25 is unreferenced.
- References
- Fifteen dead references: #2, #55, #64, #66, #80, #74, #71, #73, #83, #76, #79, #82, #75, #84, #72.
- Several references (#11, #12, #16) are other Wikipedia articles.
- Ref #50 is a bare url.
Been nearly six years since this list was promoted, and its quality has unfortunately not been upheld. Azealia911 talk 19:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – I am very sad to say it, but this list currently does not meet the criteria as expected. Also, Azealia, you're supposed to notify the main editor, but Pyrrhus16, I believe, is inactive. -- Frankie talk 22:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did take notifications into account, and probably should have noted, but both the article creator and it's main editors have been inactive for a great length of time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Michael Jackson is also inactive. Azealia911 talk 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist too many problems with referencing Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Unfortunately a key list like this is in bad condition. Many referencing issues. Large proportion of references are to Halstead's book which is self-published so can be unreliable. Lack of rowscopes and rowcols for access on the tables. Cowlibob (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLRC as delist: no fixes made, multiple delist votes. --PresN 15:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.