Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2009

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 IMatthew 21:11, 29 August 2009 [1].

Notified: Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject History of Canada, WikiProject Politics, I believe Golbez already knows about this.

IMO, this article currently fails featured list criteria 1, 3a, and 5b. I believe it fails criteria #1, as I feel that the white spaces are just way too big, and that the "Timeline" section be created into a table. Second, I also believe there could be more information to be included, as a one sentence prose is practically absurd, thus failing #3a, and will also make this article look more like an article than a list, and should be nominated for GA/FA. Finally, the article fails #5a, as it has no alt text for any of the images. I would be willing to help make this article keep its status if you guys think anything is necessary to keep its star. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm.
  • Table: I don't really see how this would help; the data's not really tabular (though I could see it being tabular, but all you gain are lines around everything, what's the point? there's no sorting possible), and the layout would be little different. There'd still be large white areas.
    • The images will be included into the table, making the images smaller, though can still be seen by the readers. A table would help the article be more visually appealing. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless we're specifying how big the images should be (which is generally frowned upon) I'm not seeing how putting them into a table will cause that. I don't see how having a big grid of lines surrounding the existing text is at all visually appealing. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trust me, its more visually appealing than having white spaces. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • White space plus lines, or white space. Nope, not seeing the appeal here. --Golbez (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, more information should be included. I've been working on the article again, as shown by the new maps. Though, if you think it fails 3a for not being comprehensive, perhaps you could share why you think that. What entry is missing? 3a seems to be speak of comprehensiveness of the list, rather than comprehensiveness of individual entries.
    • I just think one sentence paragraphs aren't comprehensive enough. That is why making a table is probably the best way to fix this, so that the one sentence won't look choppy as having them be paragraphs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd much rather add more information than put it into a table. I'm sure our readers would benefit from that decision as well. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I definitely agree with you. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was promoted before 5a; logically, one might think that it's simpler to ask for alt images to be placed rather than nominate it for removal because it doesn't meet a criteria that didn't exist when it was promoted, and it's not like it's difficult to add alt images.
    • I nominated this for removal because of not having enough detail in the descriptions of how the territories were changed. There could definitely be more added into the article, IMO. I only put 5a as one of the criterias that were not satisfied because, of course, there were no alt text. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish you had brought these concerns to the article talk page or to me. I could slap some token alt texts up there quickly; you haven't justified your statement that it "absurdly" fails 3a; and you haven't demonstrated a reasonable way to fix the perceived failure of 1.
    • I just think having more users being notified about this would be better than going to the talk page. There is a much of work to do with this article, which is why I nominated this for FLRC. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, I suppose. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is how the article would look like if it had a table instead of one sentence paragraphs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of white space with lines, as I said. The data is not terribly tabular in nature. --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you got to admit, it looks better than what is currently on the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. --Golbez (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks a little better. Of course, if the table was sortable by date, that would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would accomplish what? There's only one possible sortable column - date. If you want it in reverse order, may I suggest scrolling to the bottom and hitting page up? =p --Golbez (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair point, after all this is an "evolution" list so sorting by date is kind-of redundant in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think a table is much better in this case since the order year, territory, notes can only be achieved that way and gives IMO a better visual appeal.
   • How would you order by territory? Many entries involve multiple territories, and WP can't order split rowspans. --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Image of the new territory. I don't mean sorting since only the date is relevant for the sorting, I mean the general style of having three columns one for the time, one for the map and another for information regarding how Canada evolved to this territory. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's how it is now. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the table from User:SRE.K.A.L.24 . I think this looks much better than the previous full of whitespace list. The main reason the list isn't Featured quality is the lack of info on these territories. Mere descriptions should be expanded.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason then the layout isn't an issue. I still see lots of whitespace, but with the added benefit of lines. It's a list, not a table. There's not really tabular information here. --Golbez (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. More information in the notes would surely be better, I mean something like "The British colony of British Columbia joined Canada and became a province." can be added in a caption of the image.
2. Split References to General and Specific
3. The Wikisource reff poses a style problem.

Comment - After 8 days, the article hasn't been expanded one bit, and I still believe it fails 1, and 3a. I think it now satisfies criteria 5b, as the table looks more better than white spaces, IMO. I wouldn't be able to fix up the article, as I don't have the time, and because I am a terrible researcher. We also need more reviewers on this, as there has only been one reviewer for this entire nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a scientific method of establishing this but I would say it has the same amount of white space as before, just with some lines through it. I'll work on it now. Also, I'd like other opinions on whether or not this data is actually tabular in nature. Tables are not to be used for "pretty", they are to be used for tabular data. That's not generally enough to justify an HTML table. Regardless of if it improves the aesthetics, (which I of course disagree with) the fundamental usage needs justification. For example, other lists that consist only of date and information manage to be featured without being in a table: Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season for example. --Golbez (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the table was inserted into the article because of visual appeal (if you believe it or not). If you can include more information about the territorial evolution of Canada, I think the tables can be removed, and there wouldn't be a huge load of white-spaces. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "tables are not used for pretty", you come right back and say "it's used for visual appeal". We both cannot be right here. --Golbez (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According you WP:WTUT, you are actually right. My fault, though I still believe more information could be added into the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you suggest for an alt text for a map? I know we need it, I'm not being belligerent here, I just can't think of one that's useful. "A map of Canada as it was on June 1, 1867"? --Golbez (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basic idea is for the alt text to describe the gist of the image's visual appearance that isn't already described by adjacent text or caption. We shouldn't assume that the reader knows Canadian geography. I suggest that for the first (animated) image the alt text say something like "Series of images, described below, ending in the current political subdivision of Canada, which is a row of tall thin provinces across the southern border starting with British Columbia on the west, then Alberta, ... (you fill in the rest)". The alt text for the 1867 image can then describe that image in terms of today's subdivisions (e.g., BC unchanged, Quebec is just the southeast half of modern Quebec); and alt text for later images can build on what's been said for earlier images. In the simplest cases (e.g., the 1873 image) the alt text can just be "See adjacent text" since there's nothing more to say; but more typically the image conveys useful info that's not in the adjacent text, so that should be summarized in the alt text. Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added some content, and references, added some alt text. Still want to revise alt text somewhat, not finished going to the bottom of all the dates in the list. Work in progress.SriMesh | talk 05:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SriMesh, for adding more information about the article, but now, there are no images for the added information. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I suppose I will have to fix that...will work on it on the week-end all goes well...will also try to put a request in at the map work group at wikimedia commons. SriMesh | talk 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or ask the person who made the maps and has the raw files with which to edit them. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list was retained as an FL, but a couple images still need alt text per WP:ALT, and I hope that expansion efforts will continue. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 21:11, 29 August 2009 [2].

Notified: Colin, Durova

I am nominating this for featured list removal because many of the references are dead or are from non-reliable sources. There's some pretty dubious prose going on, a lot of "best known for", "best remembered for", "acclaimed"... some MOS breaches (MOSBOLD for instance), it almost certainly needs a notice to say it's probably incomplete... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please give examples of the perceived problems in referencing. Other than that, the objections appear to be minor. Dynamic lists are not required to be complete. This is the most extensive list of its type. It is the successor to a list I compiled nine years ago which was so much better than any other then-existing list that a major brain tumor charity contacted me to request permission to use it. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many references to IMDB. For this kind of information IMBD is not a reliable source. Other than that I don't see a reason to remove the article's FL status. Garion96 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything about a named person's state of health is sourced to the IMDB please list it here. Durova²⁸⁸ 15:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMDB is used 11 times in the list. Pamela Britton, Brenda De Banzie and 9 more. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not doubting it's a good list, but it needs to meet our current standards, and reliable sourcing, non-hagiographical biographies, compliance with WP:MOS. The image needs alt text. There are 11 references to Internet Movie Database, 6, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 25, 27, 33, 55 and 67. Other references, at a glance, which I'd need convincing to be reliable, include:
        • www.msanthrope.com
          • Satisfies WP:RS as a self-published site; it's the official site of guitarist James Murphy.[3] Durova²⁸⁸ 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • top-lyrics.elizov.com
          • Changed sourcing to the Rockabilly Hall of Fame entry.[4] Durova²⁸⁸ 17:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.spacefacts.de
          • Used as a source for a Russian cosmonaut who died of a brain tumor in 1980. We can remove the entry if that isn't satisfactory, or else I could contact Russian editors to seek Russian language sourcing. Should be easily verifiable if true. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Understood what it is used for. Seems to be hosted by a couple of enthusiasts who welcome corrections to their site. Would recommend a more reliable source. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Moving to talk pending verification. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • womenshistory.about.com
          • Removed entry. Insufficient sourcing. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.classichorror.free-online.co.uk
          • What entry was that used for? There are over 300 entries on this list. A search function for that URL turned up nothing. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Presumably it's a redirect. Use the external links tool on this page to find it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Presumably you could find it. The onus is on you. It would be simpler if you provided people's names with domain names. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, the onus is on you to fix the broken and redirected links using the tool. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • And a one-second search on "horror" on this list shows that ref 51 redirects there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You appear to misunderstand the standards of featured content reviews. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Excuse me but I'm trying hard to help you here. These comments were made on a cursory glance at the list. Use the tools available to find the problems. There are dozens and dozens of referencing issues that you must fix for this to remain featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Actually the onus is on the proposer to demonstrate problems. This list has been featured for years, no complaint was made at the talk page prior to nomination for removal, and the notification at my user talk linked to the wrong discussion. Am doing my best to accommodate this odd request promptly; it is nothing extraordinary to ask for a name. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Our instructions state "Any objections raised in the review must be actionable." and everything I've suggested to be fixed is actionable. We now have plenty of tools you can use to help you. It's hardly an odd request as you can see - dozens and dozens of referencing problems. Something we don't want as "Wikipedia's finest work". FLRC is the mechanism we use to deal with problematic lists. And standards have most definitely changed since this list became featured "years" ago. However, I'm very pleased that you're attending to these issues promptly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • The domain "www.classichorror.free-online.co.uk" does not appear anywhere on the page. If you cannot or will not provide a name to go with it, nothing can be done about that complaint. 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
                            • In the "toolbox" at the top of this page, you can find "external links" which will show you the dead links, those that redirect and those that are fine. The tools are here for you. Ref 51 lists as "changes domain". These should always be checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ayup.co.uk
          • Replaced with The Independent. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note: The Independent is a work, not the publisher. Please check all other references for this! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • And the reference should include the date of publication and first & last name of the author. Please check all other similar sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.poemhunter.com
          • Replaced with the Poetry Foundation. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.hollywood.com
          • Used for the biography of actress Sandy Duncan; the tumor interrupted her career. What is the challenge to Hollywood.com's suitability as a source for actor biographies? 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        • www.karinthy.hu
          • Replaced with The New York Review of Books. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • zenvirus.com
          • Satisfies WP:RS as a self-published source by the subject/author Hugh Cook.[5] Durova²⁸⁸ 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • archive.salon.com
          • Salon.com is widely accepted as a reliable source. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.allaboutjazz.com
          • Moved to talk pending better sourcing. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.ukgameshows.com
          • Replaced with the Los Angeles Times. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.buzzle.com
          • Replaced with Soccer America Magazine. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • www.time-to-run.com
          • Replaced with BBC News. Durova²⁸⁸ 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 127 is incorrectly formatted. Seems to be issues over whether publishers are works and vice vera. Well over 20 deadlinks, use the tool on this page to find them. When I have time I'll run through each and every reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When the referencing issues are addressed, the lead needs to be improved to current standards. List of cutaneous conditions is an excellent example of a medical featured list, although I don't expect the lead to be so long. The last paragraph talks about statistics from 2005, and the last sentence cites a reference from 2006; should this be updated? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All challenged domains have been double checked and adjusted as needed. Only two of the fourteen entries required moving to the talk page. Nominator had failed to check that some of the challenged domains were acceptable as self-published sources and refuses to supply a subject name for a domain that does not appear on the page. Wikipedia's manual of style is an open edit page that has changed in four years; WP:SOFIXIT. Nominator's tone is uncooperative, bordering on combative. Prompt response to this unusual nomination has delayed ongoing work on existing priorities, specific to things discussed here. This is the most complete and best-referenced list of its type ever assembled, and nearly everything challenged checks out. Do with the list as you will; this discussion leaves me distinctly less inclined to contribute another featured list in future. Durova²⁸⁸ 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Let's just get this out of the way. I have no remaining interest in this process. Durova²⁹⁹ 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list won't be "demoted" while editors are actively improving the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment "Nearly everything challenged checks out"? Why would someone so commensurate with featured content accept that a list with 27 dead links and 11 links to IMDB (as noted above) is still considered "Wikipedia's finest work"? Not to mention the lack of alt text, MOS breaches and poor prose in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all dead links are bad. The link can be removed but with many the source is still valid, it just is not available online. The Associated Press ones for instance. I do agree that the IMDB references have to be replaced. Garion96 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) It's too bad The Rambling Man didn't supply a complete list of problems when requested. The manner in which this nomination has been pursued is so off-putting that I am unwatching the page. Durova²⁸⁸ 20:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Durova, you're made your position clear. This is not important enough to warrant your time. That's unfortunate. The fact that you did not wish to attend to dead links (which were mentioned in the initial nomination), the poor prose (which was mentioned in the initial nomination), the unreliable sources (which I picked at random - I think 10 of the 14 you fixed, so it was obviously worth noting), the IMDB references (which two editors noted, but you ignored) nor the MOS breaches (noted in the original nomination (i.e. MOSBOLD) is a real shame. We're not here to hold you hand - that's why the toolbox is so important. I could have copied and pasted each and every deadlink from there to here, but that's really not my job. It's down to the community to fix it and that's why you were notified, in case you wished to help. I understand you're busy, and perhaps too busy. But FLC criteria and standards have changed. FLRC is not a personal indictment, it's simply a way to ensure our current featured lists are the best Wikipedia can do. And right now, this list is far from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do not put words in my mouth. The featured list program has been having trouble retaining contributors. There is something to be learned from this interaction, and for the sake of the program it would be good to learn it. Durova²⁸⁸ 21:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm not sure how or why these exchanges soured, but what exactly did The Rambling Man do wrong? He clearly stated the problems with the list, and on being asked, provided a goodly amount of issues to be resolved. As for the reliable sources, it is usually on the onus of the nominator to prove what makes a site reliable. Indicators of reliability include being cited by multiple reliable sources, being backed by a major media company that would have a reputation for fact checking, or the fact that the site uses a reliable method of fact checking. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I'm probably being dense, but I don't understand your comments about the "featured list program" having "something to be learned". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With most types of featured processes, editors attempt to discuss issues before nominating for formal review unless the problems are really extensive or severe. I had another list featured at around the same time, and subsequently supported its delisting (without any hard feelings) because site standards really had changed in meaningful ways that would have been difficult to re-reference. This was a poorly constructed nomination: the nominator clearly hadn't double checked the alleged problems, was unprepared to give specifics, and his mislinked notification to a different list suggests the review was prompted more by the candidate's duration of tenure as a featured list than by any actual faults. It is not an effective strategy to go to the creator of Category:Hyphen Luddites and argue that adherence to the manual of style raises the standards of a featured process; over at featured sounds we had someone who supposed it was a step forward to oppose a featured sound nomination over an en-dash (yes, really). That sort of reviewing signals the rise of superficialities over substance, of form over content, and regarding such matters as that I certainly do have better things to do. Was willing to resolve issues of sourcing to the extent the nominator was willing or able to articulate what they are, but either uncooperativeness or disorganization prevented doing so in any time-efficient manner. If this is the direction featured lists regards as progress, then I'll step off the train. Thank you kindly for the ride. Durova²⁸⁸ 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or to be more specific, this list was inspired by Michael Finley's 2001 article "Liz Taylor's Brain Tumor"[6] and Steve DePesa's earlier "LIVING WITH A MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMOR: A Patient's Survival Guide".[7] Various lists circulated within the brain tumor patient and caregiver community during the late 1990s and early 2000s, each of which carried a different set of names and was unreferenced. In 2001 I compiled a referenced list that was more than five times as long as any of the previous ones and circulated it internally. The National Brain Tumor Foundation requested permission to use the list and still publishes a truncated version of it on their website with my original notes, minus the original sourcing.[8] NTBF has reused it many times in other venues (a couple of examples[9][10]) and it's been amusing to see how frequently those reuses presented names in the same order I gave them to NTBF. If any of those reuses reappear at the Wikipedia list those citations weren't my additions; I've been careful about not cannibalizing my own research. It was refreshing to bring that to Wikipedia and see other people add to it far beyond its original scope; four years ago that showed the wiki process in its best light. If editors these days are too caught up in superficial procedure to care about that, (shrug)... Durova²⁸⁸ 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I apologise for the mislinked notification. But other than that, the list needs a lot of work. Standards and criteria have changed a lot since this list was promoted, so FLRC is the ideal location for issues to be addressed. As for specifics, did you want me to copy the results of the External links check (from the toolbox), and or copy "MOSBOLD"'s content here? You changed 10 of the 14 sources I pointed out (after a cursory glance), there are 27 dead links, still MOS breaches, no alt text, poor prose and a weak lead, so when you say "nearly everything challenged checks out", we're not talking about the same things. A list of this magnitude needs a number of individual reviewers to look it over, and right now there's a clear "to-do" list. The featured list process, by the way, is alive and kicking, not "having trouble retaining contributors", and I think the only thing we'll learn from this is that you "have 288 featured credits, and could probably create three more in the time that nomination bodes to waste". Good luck in your future featured endeavours, I'm sure the community here will do their best in your absence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Let's make this simple: 24 hours from now, if no one objects, I will speedy close this nomination as successful and defeature the page. Brain tumors are the leading form of childhood cancer death in the United States. This list humanizes a terrifying illness; that's why it's been circulated by a leading charity for nearly a decade. If you had simply talked reasonably this would have been sorted out, but this conversation has been so glib it's macabre. Rambling Man, please do not post to my user talk again or attempt to contact me for any reason whatsoever. I hope someday you feel as ashamed as you ought to be. Durova²⁸⁸ 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nomination will run, as expected, for two weeks. No-one doubts the significance of brain tumours but the list (which is what we're here to discuss) is not up to current standards. And no, I have nothing to be ashamed of whatsoever. Your seem horrified that someone would review one of your featured works as currently sub-standard, that's unfortunate. If we can fix the dozens of broken links, the MOS breaches, the lack of alt text and improve the lead and general prose, the list stays featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The to-do list

• Fix deadlinks - currently the Checklinks tool is showing:
  • 41, 62, 68, 71, 73, 75, 92, 99, 108, 113, 121, 128, 134, 136, 146, 163, 164, 187, 190, 194, 212, 214, 218, 221, 242, 247 and 249 as dead.
  • 17, 44, 55, 67, 89, 140, 157, 171, 193, 207, 223, 226, 269 as connection failed or remote server error
• The IMDB links, as noted above.
• The difference between work and publisher in citations and ensuring all have accessdate fields. done
• The image requires alt-text. (WP:WIAFL criterion 5b) done
• The names should not be in bold per WP:MOSBOLD. (WP:WIAFL criterion 5) done phew
• The lead is of the traditional "This article provides a list of notable people...." so needs reworking. As Dabomb87 pointed out, the recently-promoted List of cutaneous conditions is a good example of what we're looking for (per criterion 2).
• Statistics are out of date (2005), or at the very least, up to date stats should be sought if possible.
• Sortable tables would also be useful (per criterion 4).
  • Comment by Colin: Sorting is less useful due to the splitting into arbitrary categories. Only name and birthdate would be sortable. What would sorting a small category by birthdate achieve? Colin°^Talk 16:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, survival time and diagnosis could be sorted too where available, but yes, the arbitrary category split (which may need addressing since, as you say, it is 'arbitrary') renders the overall sorting scheme less useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And actually, the notes column pretty much covers the sub-section headings, and moreover, we have a "Miscellaneous" heading which is not particularly useful. Perhaps it's worth considering removing the sub-sectioning altogether and produce a single, sortable list. As age is mentioned in the lead, perhaps age upon death should be a column which would be sortable as well... just thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The prose describing the members of the list needs reworking (per criterion 1). done

It would be great if interested members of the FL community could help with this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I get some time later today, I'll audit/fix/remove the referencing. Can someone else fix the lead to avoid the "This is a..." style. Colin°^Talk 08:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Colin. I think the lead will benefit from a brief explanation of brain tumors, the types of diagnoses, and an update for the statistics (from 2005 to as close to present day as possible). We would need an expert in the field to cover this adequately. As Dabomb87 pointed out, the List of cutaneous conditions shows an example of what is now expected from a lead in a featured list of this type. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the lead need be as extensive as List of cutaneous conditions. That is a list of varied medical conditions, the scope of which is a medical discipline and the lead is effectively an introduction to that discipline. This is a list of people, who have nothing in common save for a diagnosis, and as such are not generally studied or written about as a whole except for epidemiology. We should briefly mention the common types of brain tumour and their prognosis and any epidemiological facts. I don't think an expert is required for the level of detail here. The source we have for cancer stats has been updated for 2009 so we can update this (however the figures are based on the 10 years to 2005 and I suspect just extrapolated to the current US population). It would be nice to have non-US stats too. Colin°^Talk 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a list of this length could easily host a detailed lead, and as you say, mentioning the common types, prognoses and other epidemiological facts will be fine. The example was merely to show what would be considered "engaging" and "complete". If you feel happy to write about the various conditions then that's absolutely brilliant, the only reason I suggested an "expert" was to satisfy ourselves that the lead was factually accurate, especially as, noted by Durova, the list is used in a number of places external to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The length of the list has nothing to do with how long the lead should be. The brain tumor article is the place for detail about tumors. Other than briefly introduce the medical condition, the lead should really focus on the people, to the extent that anyone has studied "people with brain tumors" as a group. Compare hep C, polio and epilepsy. The latter of these three has the most to say about people and lists as they have been studied and speculated about for centuries. We shouldn't need say much more about brain tumours here than can be found on any brain-tumour-charity website in lay language. If you like, I'll ask one of the Wikidocs to check it once we've improved things here. Colin°^Talk 16:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not strictly true if you follow WP:LEAD, but then some argue this shouldn't apply to lists but I'm not so sure myself. Anyway, it needs rewriting and yes, I think you should include, as you indicated, a brief description of the different types of tumor etc. You're right that it should be in lay terms, there are some heavily complex terms used here. And yes, it would be appropriate to have it double-checked. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, interested that the median "survival" statistics table is in this list of people article and not in the brain tumor article itself. Perhaps a summary of that table here and the table moved to there? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm on holiday till the 12th August. Will resume work then. Colin°^Talk 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's showing up Bueno de Mesquita and The Chosen as disambiguation links. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I'm happy the list is once again at FL status. Do others agree? Many thanks to Dabomb87, DO11.10, Durova and The Rambling Man for their help. Colin°^Talk 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost there. "This article provides a list of notable people who had a primary or metastatic brain tumor (either benign or malignant) at some point in their lives, as confirmed by public information. " FLs no longer begin like this. Great job in general though. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did ask if someone else could rephrase the lead sentence. I didn't have any problem with the old "This is a list of..." style at FL and think moving away from it makes it harder for someone come up with a consise way of specifying the scope of the list in the lead sentence (the scope of the list is, after all, what the topic is; the topic is not brain tumours). Perhaps someone can surprise me with a clever new-style lead. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I would expect a sentence that explains what a brain tumor is, and/or what it means in the context of this article. See List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: T–V as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I reorganized the lead by introducing the general idea of a brain tumor first, and then specifying the inclusion criteria. I think it reads much better. Great job by everyone involved to bring this up to standard. I still have a little bit of work to do on the list, but I don't mind if it's kept now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really think that the tables should be made sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, I've changed them to sortable. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 17:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Jamie, but it's not that simple (or I would have done it myself). Names don't sort properly unless you use {{sortname}}, and the survival column's all messed up when sorted; we need sortkeys using {{sort}}, which will take a while. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, goodness, my bad. ;) I'm okay with GAs, but it's obvious that I usually don't get near featured content. JamieS93 17:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this can be kept. Sortability is not a deal-breaking issue—I'll slowly work my way through the article to implement it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment do we still need the arbitrary sections? Since the notes column contains a wealth of information about each person, would it be reasonable to merge all the tables into one list? I've never been keen on a section called "Miscellaneous"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the classification to be one of the most useful and interesting aspects of these lists. The notes column is not a substitute. If you can find a classification system that avoids MISC then great, but I would be opposed to removing the groups from long people-lists like this one per FLC 4. Colin°^Talk 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)a[reply]

My suggestion comes from the perspective of having a list which is sortable in its entirety rather than based on arbitrary classifications, which, in my opinion, are pretty redundant given the notes. For instance, in the "Acting" section, every single note includes the word Actor or Actress... There is also the issue of crossover categorisation as well - see Ray Bumatai who is listed as being an actor in the Music section. But it's just my opinion and if no-one else is bothered about the redundancy or crossovers, then no problem. FLC criterion 4 does say "make it easily navigable" and this can be taken in different ways, for instance being able to sort the whole list by survival or diagnosis rather than just a subsection of the whole list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "acting" in the notes section does not enable readers to group people based on the profession of acting; it only allows them to see that entry in position 93 is an actress. I think sorting is more of a pointless exercise than grouping as this is an unbounded dynamic list whose entries are influenced by the availability of data both via current media reports and current medical diagnosis. Will sorting by date tell me the first/most-recent person to have ever had a brain tumour? Do I want to know who has the alphabetically least surname among the list? The survival/diagnosis sections aren't even populated enough to be useful for sorting. Please don't remove the useful grouping to make the less useful sorting appear more comprehensive (it wont as that's an illusion -- this list has no first or last, no matter how you sort it). Colin°^Talk 12:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain as to why sorting per "actors" is any more or less useful than sorting by survival time. Other usages of this list outside Wikipedia seem to have removed the arbitrary subsectioning, but as I've already said, it's just my opinion and I'm not going to act on it as I'm a lone voice. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could combine the tables into one, and then create a new "Profession" (there's probably a better word) column, in which we put "Actor", "Film/TV" or whatever the person did. That way, it would be one table but still have the ability to look at a group of people by the work they did. Obviously, that would take some time, but we don't necessarily have to hold up the FLRC over it. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't an FLRC matter and could be taken to the talk page for a different audience. Grouping is not the same as sorting. Once you combine this into one column, people will make the "Profession" or "Life" field into whatever they want, to the detail they want, and suddely you have "Trapese artist" next to "Technologist" and it is pretty useless. The reason sorting by survivial time isn't useful is just a practical one -- we mostly don't know it, sometimes it is months, sometimes years and sometimes a start-year, open-ended. Same goes for diagnosis. The main reason for not having one big list is that any reader confronted with 250+ rows in one big list will just be put off by the monolithic size of it, and lose track of where they got to as they read through it. Chunking is a necessary human-interface concept that people need. Not many readers will even know that tables can be sorted. Colin°^Talk 15:06, 27 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 00:05, 24 August 2009 [11].

Notified: WT:CRIC, Moondyne

I am nominating this for featured list review because it has changed substantially from when it was promoted in August 2005, and how it appears today. That isn't a bad thing by itself, but a few stylistic and formatting errors have crept in, and while the FL criteria has been updated and expected standards improved, the page hasn't moved along at the same pace.

1. The lede needs rewriting to meet Criteria 1 and 2. Lists don't start with "This is a list of" any more, for example. Instead of the sentence, "Records for the short form of international cricket, One Day Internationals, are at List of One-Day International cricket records, that list of records should be linked in a See Also section. There is no discussion about any of the cricket records such as who has hit the most sixes or whatever (I'm not a cricket fan).
   • Removed that sentence. I shall work on writing a lead over next couple of days.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeeling (talk • contribs)
2. Some tables could do with being updated to being sortable (I don't think this was possible in 2005), such as the first "Team wins, losses and draws" table. There's also no need for a "Rank" column, because the teams are ranked by the "% Won" column.
   • Sorted that table, are there other tables which need doing?
     • I think only that 1st table is suited for be sortable. Its mostly inapplicable on the others. –Moondyne 07:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. In the following two tables, there are some city names in small text, but what does it mean? Is it where the team is based? Where the games were played? I don't know because there is nothing to explain any of the tables.
   • They are the locations of the Test matches which started/ended the run. I have added notes to that affect.
     • Will work on this now. –Moondyne 07:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looking at other tables, what does "903-7 d"" mean? Is the hyphen correct or does the figure indicate some sort of range, in which case it should be a dash.
   • There is a listing notation section at the top of the page which should explain that.
5. In the individual records section, names such as Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting are bolded, which violates MOS. Date ranges use the emdash instead of endash, which also violates MOS.
   • Done.
6. In the "Highest proportion of runs in a completed innings total" section, it says 165 is a record was in the first innings of the first ever Test match, and has never been beaten, but a couple of rows down, there's a score of 167.
   • 165 out of 245 is a larger proportion than 167 out of 261.
7. When we get to the Individual records (bowling) section, the tables are so badly formatted that they now creep past the border of the page. It's causing problems on my screen resolution, so I hate to think what it's doing for people with a 17" screen at 800x600. The page doesn't print out right either (click "printable version" in the toolbox and then "File>Print preview" in your browser) as it leaves off the bottom quarter of the page. Finally, some sections have three tables side-by-side, causing a fair bit of readability problems.
   • It looks OK for me but I shall fix the three side by side tables, are two tables on one line OK?
     • Reverted to single table wide layout. –Moondyne 07:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. The references are formatted in a weird way. Each table says "Source: Cricinfo.com. Last updated: 18 August 2008." instead of listing them in a references section. Some sources claim to have not been updated since 2007 or 2008. These need looking at to make sure that things haven't changed. There are also seven external links, but only one reference in the reference section.
   • I have formatted from embedded links to references. I shall double check whether everything's up-to-date at the end of the current Ashes Test although I expect it to be mostly fine.

I think if the page formatting gets addressed it will go a long way to making it safe from demotion, otherwise I don't believe it offers readers something that we can confidently say "This is our very best work". Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of #1, the lead, all of the points raised have now been addressed or explained. I have tidied and formatted as well as removing a few tables which were, IMHO, a bit obscure. –Moondyne 08:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done I didn't know that tool existed and had often wished for something similar. You learn something everyday. –Moondyne 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is rewritten. –Moondyne 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wow, it looks nothing like it did before (positive). Great job! One thing off the bat: there was a recent discussion about Howstat's reliability at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Sourav Ganguly/archive1, and consensus was that it was not considered reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm of the opinion that the proportion record is too trivial and should be removed, but if it's kept there is a Cricinfo ref for that. The other Howstat ref is currently on the progressive Test runs record and there isn't a direct Cricinfo replacement. There is this but it's a few years out of date and doesn't include Tendulkar so a better, more up to date link would be this however it's from Cricinfo Blogs which may not be considered a reliable source. Ric Finlay, the person writing the blog, gets several mentions on Google News for being a statician and according to the blurb on the sidebar of the Cricinfo Blog link he's one of the leading Australian statiscians/scorers, if that has any affect on the reliability. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • fixed Agreed and removed. Its an oft-quoted record only because Bannerman set it in the 1st Test and it remains unbroken to this day which is a little unusual. Other than that it had always seemed slightly obscure to me. –Moondyne 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no response with regard the reliability of Cricinfo Blogs so I have gone ahead and replaced the other Howstat reference with the link I mentioned above. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image needs alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had a go. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "The duration of Tests is currently limited to five days but this has varied through Test history often decided by the host country's board." Awkward sentence at the end; might help to introduce some punctuation.
  • Added a comma but it still reads awkwardly to me. Working on this. I have now changed the second half of the sentence to say the type of variety rather than who decided it, I believe it reads better. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Change comma after "between England and Australia in March 1877" to a semi-colon.
• "as well as cricket boards looking to maximising revenue." "maximising" → "maximize".
  • Cricket articles generally use Commonwealth English. –Moondyne 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the main point of the comment was to remove the -ing so it actually made sense, I did that but kept the English spelling of maximise because of the above. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "is Australia having won 332 of their 712 Tests." Comma after Australia.
• "Baring the ICC World XI". Typo.
• "and was a part of the record fifth and six wicket partnerships." Should it be "fifth and sixth", or is this how cricket writers put it?
  • Done those four.
• There are punctuation needs throughout. More commas could be used in certain spots, and semi-colons could replace a few commas.
  • Added a few commas. Will continue to look at this.
• A couple of record headers use spaced em dashes, which the Manual of Style discourages. The easiest solution is to make them unspaced.
  • Switched to ndashes.
• References from newspapers should give the publisher in italics. An easy way of achieving this is to use the work= parameter in the cite templates. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for your help. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't test cricket be linked somewhere?
• "in his one and only Test" -> "one and" is redundant.
• Don or Donald Bradman? Pick one and stick with it.
• "(in the inaugural Test Match)" - in general in this list, this sort of thing is made into a note.
• Notes which are complete sentences really ought to end with a full stop.
• I think John Ferris' dual nationality needs a reference/explanation.
  • 6 x Done. Thanks. –Moondyne 12:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A note explaining the difference between a season which spans two years and a season which spans just one would be appreciated for non-cricket-savvy readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. –Moondyne 13:41, 15 August 2009 (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 The Rambling Man 10:19, 15 August 2009 [12].

Notified: WikiProject National Football League, Minnesota Vikings subproject, and RyguyMN

I don't think this list meets FLC #2 or #5. All refs are just for the stats in the table and the lead is too short. BUC (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. See List of New York Giants seasons for an example of an NFL seasons FL that meets standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove – Much work is needed for this to meet modern FL standards.

• The lead is too short. It should be at least two larger paragraphs, and many recent sports season FLs have three or more.
• In addition to needing expansion, the lead shouldn't have a "This is a list of" beginning.
• If facts in the lead aren't covered by general references, they need inline citations.
• Sports E-cyclopedia is of questionable reliability.
• In the table, I see an overuse of bolding. It wasn't discouraged when I worked the Giants list to FL status, but it is now.
• A photo for the lead would be nice. Several season FLs use a photo of the team's stadium. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a Vikings fan, I would be sad to see this get de-listed. I know it doesn't meet the criteria now, but if y'all can give me a couple of days, I may be able to bump it up to current standards. If not, let me know and I'll take care of it after a de-list and we'll go through the whole rigamarole again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements now relating to this list and have a checklist of things that still need to be done. I will check back in here when I've made further changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KV5, as you're making concerted efforts to save this from delisting, if you continue to do so then I will happily keep the nomination open for a while longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvements have been made. Not done fully to standards yet, but much improved from the condition at the beginning of the review. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, see below.

• The footnotes need references.
• Em dashes in the blank cells please.
• I don't think the note above the key is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All were on my checklist except for the em-dashes. Really necessary in blank note cells? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for consistency's sake. I put them in using WikiEd, so that will save you some time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tip of the cap. Many thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to go over everything yet. My major concern was to get it looking passably like an FL again before I nitpicked it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said (!) as long as improvements are being made in a timely manner, there's no reason to close this FLRC. I'm now in the position where I can add my 1.2 pence to these FLRCs as User:iMatthew will be closing them for the next couple of weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'll probably get to some of these tomorrow evening. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inlines are still needed in certain spots in the lead. I'm always avaliable to help if necessary. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know... I just started working on this a couple of days ago. I'll get to it. Help is certainly welcome. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks much better on the cite front. The one thing I would like to see cited is the Vikings' ranking in division titles. Footnotes still needs sources, but you probably knew that already. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes are cited now, but Crzycheetah is right in saying that the awards need sourcing. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The image needs alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible to make the table sortable, as in List of New York Giants seasons? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Issues
  • The table can and should become sortable
  • A key is needed for the awards
  • Refs are needed for the awards, as well.
  • The "Super Bowl champions" box before the table should be removed since the Vikings never became champions.

--Crzycheetah 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update from KV5

• I am working on finding sourcing for all of the awards. I don't agree with making the table sortable; I think that it detracts from the visual appeal of the list by not having the summation cells below the columns that they add (no offense to your layout, Giants2008). I have commented out the Super Bowl Champions row in the key so that the formatting can be retained if (when? I hope?) the Vikings do win a SB. Everything else is (I think) done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to nitpick here a little. Could you use the same symbols to represent different championships as in the Giants and the Bears lists? Out of all 32 lists, only Giants, Bears, and now Vikings use symbols, so I'd like to see the same symbols and colors used.--Crzycheetah 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I won't change to two single daggers instead of the double dagger for the Super Bowl champions (which isn't currently shown) because it's an improper use of the symbol. The reason I used the system I used is contained in Footnote, although I'll admit it's not completely in order. I chose not to use the double vert because some people may think it's a typo of extra pipes and remove it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really dislike the use of "¶", to me it has a very different meaning than just an indicator. Also, it's very hard to type "c and some people need to type that when they use ctrl+f to find the championships quicker or just count the championships.--Crzycheetah 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree. It's like using the copyright symbol. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's hard to type daggers and currency symbols too; in that case, copy and paste is usually used. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe we need to change the dagger and the section sign also? And just use subscripted letters?--Crzycheetah 04:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I suppose that's a possibility, though it likely negates the ability to use "Find" to get to championships. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think this is becoming too complicated. Here's my opinion: a) we should strive to be consistent within a "series" of articles, within reason; b) I don't see why we should use a symbol that has a very strong connotation already (e.g. the paragraph symbol or the copyright symbol) when there are plenty of other symbols that can be used (^, for instance). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. I don't think we need to follow what the Wikipedia article tells us. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might not have to, but if there's an established system, why not use it? The dagger symbol has other connotations outside of being a footnote or indicator, but we use that too. A lot of the symbols readily available on a keyboard are, in my opinion, ugly. I don't really have anything against the carrot, but when people start using the # and the @ and the & and the % to indicate things... it goes on and on and starts to look quite disjointed. Then we're sacrificing the visual appeal criterion for the sake of simplicity. I wish we could use tooltips for these things but, unfortunately, the MOS doesn't allow us to use the full capabilities of an electronic encyclopedia simply because it could be paper, even though it's not. That's a different argument, I suppose.</rant> KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there anything to the claim on the talk page that the divisional title count is wrong? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea; I'd have to do some research. I haven't had this page on my watchlist for more than two weeks, and that discussion is about 8 months old so I hadn't seen it until now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was quick. The claim is wrong. The Bears and Packers both had many division titles before the Vikings existed, which is where the extra numbers come from. The NFL first had divisions, then conferences, then both, which accounts for the "non-division" years at the beginning of the Vikings table. See FL List of Chicago Bears seasons for more details. However, the Packers only have 13 titles, not 19, so that has been corrected. Also, the lead had not been updated after the 2008 season (just the table), so they are now tied with the Bears' 17 division titles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Vikings' division title rank could use a source, as I said above. I seem to remember some team in Texas that has won a bunch. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there; I've been away for a week and have only had time to do minor work. This doesn't involve the hated team in Dallas because they aren't in this division. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we use more specific links in the table? For example, "Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Eagles) 26–14" in 2008 would be pipe-linked to NFL playoffs, 2008–09#Wild Card playoffs. Also, why is "Playoffs" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why playoffs is capitalized. I also don't know why I volunteer for these things... article rescue isn't my forte. I'll see what I can do. Should I un-cap all occurrences of playoff? Should I un-cap all of the pipelinks (i.e., "divisional playoffs" instead of "Divisional Playoffs")? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After searching through several sources and going through Wikipedia's articles, it seems I was in the wrong, so I restored the caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been adding some cites for awards here and there to help the process along, and plan to continue doing so. It's getting there. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards are all sourced. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "conference champion" color does not have a symbol. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did, but someone removed the pilcrows (I don't know who). Since they were taken out, and since there was some minor controversy over it before, I replaced it with a different symbol. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Excellent efforts by KV5 and Giants2008 to bring this back to FL standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep KV5, you were the one who removed that pilcrow. Anyway, all looks good, I just think that all season pages need to have the same symbols for each championship. That can be taken care of later, though.--Crzycheetah 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I removed it? How? When? Meh... fixed now. Regardless, thanks for your support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From August 1 to August 3, during your 8 edit spree, it got deleted somehow.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. OK. My b. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge commendable work by Killervogel5 and Dabomb87 to get this up to FL standered. A few things I have to nitpick, why is the stadium refered to as "H.H.H. Metrodome" rarther than it's full name? I find it a bit odd that Gary Anderson is mention in the lead when talking about Viking history, and players like say Fran Tarkenton, Cris Carter and Alan Page, are not. About 80-90% of the refs are Pro-Football-Reference.com, I think that's too many from one source, why not just make it a general ref. The NFL champions and Conference champions colours are a bit pale. Why not mention Jim Marshall's wrong way run in the footnotes. BUC (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The color scheme is identical to the other FLs. The reason PFR isn't a general reference is because they don't all go to the same source. That's what this list was before it was improved, and to return it to a general reference would be a big step back. The reason Anderson is mentioned in the lead and not Carter, Page, etc., is because Anderson, in a big way, caused the team to miss the Super Bowl, which would have been their first. The others are great players, to be sure, but this isn't a list of players; it's a list of seasons. I will fix the reference to the stadium. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I hardly did anything; it was KV5 and Giants2008 who did most of the work. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (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 The Rambling Man 19:49, 8 August 2009 [13].

Notified: User:Otto4711, WP:FILM

Featured list criteria 3b. I'm sure she has more awards, but the list is a fork list, and should be merged into the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how this fails 3b. It does note "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" and the Judy Garland article, currently an FA, is already quite large. Trying to include this list back in would not be useful nor appropriate. This is not a fork, but an appropriate spinout, as defined in Wikipedia:Content forking. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to merge them two in my sandbox, for how it will visually look like, after dinner. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (nominator and primary author) - list includes 18 awards and nominations along with around 20 additional miscellaneous honors. A list of ~38 is more than sufficient to meet WP:SAL. Judy Garland as noted is a large article and this isn't any more of a content fork than much of the rest of Category:Lists of awards by award winner. Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is how it would look like if the article was merged into the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about this one. Going by the award tables alone, yes, we could probably merge. However, the "other awards" section makes me wary. I can be swayed either way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the award summary table looks awful without a lead image and that the combined awards table doesn't look very good. The size of the lead article with the information added is daunting. Otto4711 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I made in my sandbox is only a representation of what the main article could probably look like. Only one sentence is needed in the lead, which would be kind of like "Garland has won five awards, and eighteen nominations." -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about adding a 15K list to an article that's already at 55K. That's 70K. It is suggested at WP:SPLIT that articles larger than 60K should probably be divided. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of prose size, though, the merged article is only 35 kb, well within the limits. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Judy Garland. I don't think this article is long enough to stand on its own. Also, there are errors in it. Garland was not "nominated" for the Academy Juvenile Award she was given in 1939, and saying so makes it sound like it was a competitive category. And the Grammy Hall of Fame awards that went to the Meet Me In St. Louis and The Wizard of Oz soundtracks were not Garland's personal awards. LargoLarry (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this is not a merge/deletion discussion. This FLRC simply determines whether the list meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case, Delete. LargoLarry (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean "Remove". Laugh out loud. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, REMOVE! LargoLarry (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is no minimum length requirement for Featured Lists; the requirement is that they are comprehensive and that they meet the standards for standalone lists. The article does not state that she was nominated for the Juvenile Oscar. It states she had two nominations, which she did, for A Star is Born and Judgment at Nuremberg, and that she "won" the Juvenile Oscar. If you prefer "Awarded" to "won" then that's an easily-fixed content issue. If you disagree with the inclusion of particular HoF awards, despite Garland's clear and unequivocal contributions to the soundtracks, that is something to take up on the list's talk page. It is not an "error", nor is it a reason for de-listing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no valid rationale for why this would be delisted, there has been little change in content from its having been listed a year ago until now that would jeopardize that standing. [14] There's a huge difference between arguing for a merge into the main article and arguing for delisting from a featured list status. Reasons for delisting it are the only ones that should be discussed in a delisting nomination and I see none of those. The main argument here seems to be that the content should be part of the main article, and per Collectonian, the content fork was valid and the main article, which is a featured article, is large enough. The coverage appears as comprehensive as possible. I would note that at least on my browser, the image in the box at the heading makes the rest of the box impinge on the table for the Academy Awards. That may just be a factor of my browser. However, without valid rationale for how this list does not meet FL criteria, the nomination should be closed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale for putting this up for FLRC was valid – that the article could be considered a content fork and therefore could fail FL criterion 3b. However, editors dispute that the article fails 3b, and that is also valid. AFAICT, nothing has gone wrong here, except that there seems to be a disagreement over whether this article meets 3b or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist/Issues
  • Why is the infobox in non-standard size? It should not have any fixed size.

• Since the infobox will need to be custom-built, I'm not going to devote the time to it until the outcome of this discussion. There's no point in creating a custom infobox if the list is just going to end up merged (to which I continue to object).

• • I believe in each section before the table, you need to have a sentence that explains the award. Example

• Done.

• • The Grammy Hall of Fame Recordings section needs to be a part of the other honors section because it's not an award.

• The Grammy Hall of Fame Award is most certainly an award.

• • Where's the table for Tony awards?

• I see no need for a table of one item.

• • The other honors section needs to be merged into the main article ASAP because it's a different topic. It doesn't relate to the title of this page.

• Addressed by title change.

• • As for the 3b criterion, this page definitely fails it. When the other honors section is eventually removed, it will be clearer that this page does not pass the 3b criterion.--Crzycheetah 02:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With the exception of the concerns over the "other honors" section, all of these concerns are cosmetic fixes. Re "other honors", the list was originally promoted under the name "List of Judy Garland awards and honors" before it was moved in an effort to standardize the names of these lists. However, given that there are various naming formats for lists in Category:Lists of awards by award winner ("Commemorations", "List of recognitions" and at least one other "awards and honors"), if the list were moved back to its original name any concerns about whether something is an "award" or not would be addressed. I really don't understand why having this delisted is suddenly a burning concern after a year in which neither the list contents nor the wording of 3b has undergone any significant changes. Surely if this list were so problematic there would have been something said about 3b during the promotion discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • At the time of the promotion discussion, there was no such criterion as the current 3b. This page was promoted in July 2008 while the 3b criterion was added in April 2009. It's pretty self-explanatory.--Crzycheetah 04:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Still not seeing the problem. A few stylistic fixes address the majority of your issues and 38 separate and distinct awards, nominations and honors seem more than sufficient to justify a separate list. Otto4711 (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming this page creates another problem. Until now, all similar FLs were "List of awards and nominations received by...", this page becomes inconsistent with the others just because you want to include those honors. Also, those stylistic issues need to be addressed regardless.--Crzycheetah 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. The idea that half of the contents must be jettisoned in favor of some arbitrary naming standard strikes me as more than a little bit ludicrous, as does the insistence that, say, the only Tony Award that Garland will ever receive needs to be put in a table of one. The infobox, BTW, is a non-standard size because it had to be custom-built; when the list was promoted there was no template that included all of the awards Garland received as parameters. If one exists now I will happily substitute it, otherwise if someone can instruct me on how to build such a template or re-size the existing table I can do that. Otherwise I don't think that a cosmetic issue that can't immediately be fixed should be held against the list. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any reason why this page should be unique and different than the other awards lists. As for the infobox, you can always look at the example I provided above. All issues can be easily fixed without any major problems.--Crzycheetah 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And I don't see any reason why an article's name shouldn't accurately reflect its contents. As noted above, there is diversity in the naming format of awards list articles. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed that this was renamed from List of awards and nominations received by Judy Garland to List of awards and honors received by Judy Garland and checked the page to see what was being included, and that was before I read the above verbose.
  The Academy Award and Tony Award nominations are neither awards nor honors that she won, so why are they still here? The title must reflect the content. If it is a list of awards and honors, remove the nominations. If it is a list of awards, honors and nominations, the title should say so. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, [list of awards, nominations, and honors received by Judy Garland]] is a long title. I agree with you Matthew, nominations need to be removed with the current title; at the same time, listing awards without nominations is silly. The best way to go is merge this info into the main article. As SREKAL showed, the main article looks great if merged.--Crzycheetah 00:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't agree that it's great, but reasonable. How about "List of nominations and honors received by Judy Garland"? I won't like it, since it doesn't have the main content in the title, which is of course the awards, but it could work... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Or, here's a thought, this list that's sat perfectly fine for well over a year could be left alone and editors could find something more constructive to do with their time like actually improving deficient content instead of ridiculously debating whether the current title allows for the inclusion of nominations or whether an honorary award is either an honor or an award. Are there really no other articles on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from this attention that this perfectly good list has to suffer? Otto4711 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, this list isn't prefect at the moment, as I believe it is currently failing FL criteria 3b. Also, this nomination isn't ridiculous, as if a list doesn't satisfy all the FL criteria, then it shouldn't be a featured list, and therefore be demoted. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Otto, no article is WP:PERFECT, not even featured content, and it should still be worked on and improved when possible. As standards increase among featured content, stuff that was promoted a year ago may not have been brought up to those standards. It's the same for lists as it is for articles, pictures, sounds, and portals. This nomination is to discuss whether it meets current standards based on the criteria, and what can be done to improve it, even if it does still meet FL?. If it cannot be improved, then we remove it from WP:FL because it doesn't meet current standards. We aren't deciding here whether it should be merged or deleted, but only whether it can keep the gold star. And featured or not, an article's content should reflect the title. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist & merge Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bare comments mean very little. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (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 The Rambling Man 12:16, 1 August 2009 [15].

Notified: WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it breaches WP:MOS terribly. Also, during the past three years this kind of list needs an update per the revised WP:WIAFL. There's also a kind of {{trivia}}-based section which would render this entire article void of any kind of usual recognition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Why is the font size so small? It makes the table harder to read than it should be. Is it required so that the entire table fits on one screen? Giants2008 (17–14) 00:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've increased the font size from 85 to 95, I think the table automatically fits onto one screen (at least in IE) but at 100 some text moves onto the next line. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep Issues This isn't in too bad a shape; I think it can be fixed. Off the top of my head, here are a few things that can be improved:

• "Bowler" column doesn't sort properly – {{sortname}} should probably be used.
  • Done
• "This is a list of all hat-tricks in One Day International cricket" FLs don't begin like this anymore.
  • Fixed up, with some other lead modifications. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Symbols are needed to accomodate the color (e.g. * ^ #).
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The abbreviations ("a", "b" etc.) need to explained.
  • Can you just clarify which abbreviations you mean?
    • I'm guessing you mean the footnotes which don't link back into the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe this is fixed now? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the letter abbreviations in the "Wickets" column. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, hence the confusion. I don't believe "a" is an abbreviation of anything in cricket so I'd be surprised to find that in the column you've noted. Each and every one of those abbreviations is wikilinked now. Do you need more? Would you prefer it in the key as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, please. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Added, complete with cherries and ice cream. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Should the b's, c's, etc in the table be unlinked? --Jpeeling (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Cricinfo is the publisher, not the work, in the references.
  • Done
• Some of the footnotes are jargony; e.g. " Aaqib Javed ended with 7-37" Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All jargon has been linked on its first use to something useful in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer - as I am handing over to iMatthew on FLRC for a bit, while I take on a bit more at FLC, I felt that I could work on this with no conflict of interest as I will not be closing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your help. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can SCG and MCG be spelt out in the Venues column? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • <cricket snob>GAH</cricket snob> Sure thing. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm wondering if there's a better place for the cricket records box than the references section. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonder on. I was actually looking at said same box on Ganguly's FLC thinking how ugly it was. I wonder if it could be refactored into a full-width template. I can't believe we'd advocate the delisting of this list now based on this template placement. What would you like to see?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you said, I'm wondering. I never said anything about delisting. I wouldn't advocate delisting over a minor issue like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is, after all, FLRC. I would like to think the fantastic work done by User:Jpeeling already would be enough to secure a Keep before we get too stressed about the placement of such a template. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You also have done good work. I've changed to "leaning keep" (akin to a weak support at FLC), because I would like to see the opinion of an uninvolved cricket editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair point. Maybe a flaw in the "notification" process? We're reliant here on you and CrzyCheetah pretty much to give independent views on whether to keep or delist these specialised articles. Fingers crossed we get some more comments then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to FLRC instructions, the primary contributor should be notified of the FLRC too. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which would be useful if the primary contributor still contributed. These lists which were promoted three years ago stand little chance of their original primary contributors still being around. I reckon the average "wikilife" is a couple of years. I knew the primary contributor to this list, now known as "User:RetiredUser2".... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outent) I see. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this "retired user" seems to have been on-wiki a week ago, if only for a short relapse. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that, and that particular editor is aware of this FLRC. Water under the bridge. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be to 'blame' for the placement of the template, it was originally top right but I thought it would be better to have an image there. I'm not sure where else it can go, if it's placed after the reflist there's a large whitespace and if it returns to the lead there would be no image in the article. I could create an EL section but I've only found two links [16], [17] which could be suitable so the whitespace would still be substantial. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Good work has been done here since the FLRC began, and I think it has brought the list up to current standards. I'm not a fan of the records box either, but it's not worth removing the star over. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query Is Vaas the only guy to take a hat-trick in the first over. Did anyone take a hat-trick in the last over. I know Rana Naveed was on a hat-trick in the 50th over, and McGrath French cut the hat-trick ball about one stump wide of leg, for four. Shoulnd't wicketkeepers be denoted with a dagger as he is special typoe of fielder, eg, Bari is not. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Vaas is the only first over hat-trick taker, Lee's fourth over HT is the second 'earliest', not surprisingly most HTs have occurred in overs 40 to 50. Langeveldt and Bond took 50th over hat-tricks while Taylor and Morrison completed HTs with the first ball of the 50th over, do you think it worth adding as a note? Daggers done. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Starting the first sentence of an article with "when" is not a good idea. Start it with a noun, something like "A hat-trick in cricket is referred to an event where..."
    • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence should change accordingly (It is rare...)
    • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the key, letters in parentheses are used more often than the symbols, so why not just use the letters? "W" is already used as an indicator of wicket in Leg before wicket, so why not use it again for Wicket-keeper?
    • The dagger is universally used as an indicator of a wicket-keeper, just as a * next to a player's name indicates captaincy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the "date" column should be colored, since that's where a symbol is used. In the "wickets" column, a lot of symbols are used along with the color and it's confusing.
    • Done by User:Jpeeling. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see another image in the body, as well.
    • No need, would just clutter the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is the cricket nation going to upgrade their Template:Cricket records to a modern collapsible navbox?
    • Not sure about a "cricket nation" is, but the template is now a navbox. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overall, I agree with Giants2008, a huge improvement has been done during this nomination.--Crzycheetah 04:54, 1 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 21:11, 29 August 2009 [18].

Notified: PeaceNT, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Cartoon Network, WikiProject American Animation

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the short intro and very short list of references. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify relevant contributors so they are aware of this delisting nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done? Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects too. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've notified all the WP listed on the talk page: exactly none. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should notify a relevant WikiProject: probably WikiProject Television. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Short list of references" isn't in itself a reason to demote an article. Is there anything in particular that needs to be sourced? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The citation level is sufficient; what's more troublesome is the questionable reliability of the sources, such as [19] and [20]. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are current "This is a list..." style prose issues, plus the fact the lead is pretty short. No illustrative images which is a shame, and I'll need to review prose (and placement of refs)... Did anyone say what makes dvdempire a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see reception info for individual seasons if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A few things I noticed was the WP:BOLDTITLE not being an exact replica of the article title, split up between six other words, and Wikilinked in part. A bit more about the episodes, please. Who created it? It doesn't mention DC comics, or anything. Who were the main characters? Was this the first time they'd appeared together on screen? What is Postopia?
• In the summaries, there is no need to Wikilink the characters each and every time they're used.
• Is there a reason for not using {{episode list}}? Is it possible to find out who wrote and directed each episode?
• Are the following reliable sources?
  • http://epguides.com/TeenTitans
  • http://news.toonzone.net/articles/7217/cartoon-network-passes-on-teen-titans-season-six
  • http://www.titanstower.com/source/animated/frameset-animated/00_main%20animated.html
  • http://www.titansgo.net/episodes.php
  • http://titanstower.com/source/animated/episodes.html
  • http://www.toonzone.net/teentitans/index.php?content=reviews/lostepisode/index
• We should use TVShowsOnDVD.com instead of DVD Empire

Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Per reliable source and lead concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 21:11, 29 August 2009 [21].

Notified: User:The Ogre, WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject Politics

The main reason for this nomination is the lack of inline citations to make sure the content is true. I don't know what book, from the four listed in the references, I need to use to verify. We need citations to easily verify any info we want. Currently, this page fails a basic requirement for a Wikipedia article. It also fails several criteria of WP:WIAFL:

• Criterion 2: Lead The lead defines the inclusion criteria, but not the scope of the page. The lead doesn't talk about what monarchs are for, what monarchs have done to their country. The lead needs at least one paragraph about monarchs. The bulleted part should not be included in the lead.
• Criterion 3: Comprehensiveness
  • 3a The lead mentions that the list includes monarchs from 1139, yet I see the monarch of 868 is listed. What happened between 1015 and 1017? What was the title of Nuno II Mendes before 1065? What happened to the reign dates of João VI?
• Criterion 4: Structure Table sorting may be needed
• Criterion 5: Style Colors are usually used as indicators, but in this case, colors in all but the last two tables do not indicate anything. In the House of Aviz, or Joannine Dynasty section, there's a notes column that is unnecessary.

There are also several dablinks and the images need alt text.--Crzycheetah 05:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Pity, as this list is quite interesting and not in too bad a shape. Each criterion issue is not a problem by itself, but as a whole, the list no longer meets WP:WIAFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 00:05, 24 August 2009 [22].

Notified: WP:TV, 97198, AdamDeanHall

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has fallen by the wayside since its promotion just over two years ago. I feel it fails most, if not all, of the current Featured list criteria:

Criterion 2 (Lede):

• The Lede is somewhat inadequate, with only the first paragraph (four-sentence) discussing the episodes. The second paragraph (one sentence) tells us who the actresses are, and the third paragraph (also one sentence) tells us that most (quantity please?) episodes are titled after lyrics by one person. Since this doesn't come up again in the article, it should have a reference.

Criterion 3(b) (comprehensiveness/length):

• Contrasting most "3(b) nominations" here, this list fails it by being too big, but I think "...could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." can be equally applicable to lists that are too big as well as those that are too small.
• The page is one of only two Featured episode lists for a series with season pages that includes episode summaries on the main LoE page. All other episode lists for which there are also season pages have the summaries on those season pages, with the episode list page taking on an almost Summary style set up. Currently, none of the Desperate Housewives season pages have episode tables. Since none of those seasons are FL/GA/FAs, it is beneficial to include them there instead, which would mean the episode list and season pages follow current practices and the MOS:TV guidelines.

Criterion 4 (structure):

• My only quibble here is that section headers are styled "Season 4: 2007–2008". The season is not called that, simply "Season 4". By reading either the season table or the series overview table, the reader can see that it was broadcast between 2007 and 2008, so the year range isn't entirely necessary.

Criterion 5 (style):

• Table columns from one season to the next are all over the place. There is no consistent column widths.
• Some writers names are redlinks, but others are not linked at all. I'm not at all opposed to redlinks, but again, it should be consistent throughout.
• The "Episode" column has numbers such as "3-09 (50)". This may mean something to regular WP:TV folk, or even fans of the show; Special:Random readers may not know that it means "Episode 9 of season 3; episode 50 overall". {{episode list}} has dedicated columns for two episode numbers to produce a column for the episode # of the season and an overall episode #.
• I've already mentioned above that it contravenes MOS:TV, but it also violates WP:MOS and some subpages, including but not limited to:

• WP:DASH in the Series overview table
• WP:MSH
• WP:OVERLINK on writers and directors, since the tables are not sortable

Criterion 1 (prose):

• WP:PLOTSUM, WP:PLOTONLY, and WP:WAF will be of help here.
• Left the first criterion til the end. The prose here is far from "professional"; episode summaries are plot teasers in places; some summaries are too long, some too short;  :

• Season one began airing on October 3, 2004 and featured a total of 23 episodes and one clip show. wrong tense
• Mike's dog ends up in the hospital
• Bree pins the blame on her husband Rex at marriage counselling. -- about what? This is the first mention of either character
• incorrect use of single quotes where double should be used, such as Gabrielle becomes jealous of the 'other woman' in the life of her lover and forcing Gabrielle to 'come clean'.
• The residents of Wisteria Lane learn Mrs. Huber's fate. What is it?
• "NRS" - what is this an acronym of?

• Then we get to season 6, which hasn't aired yet:

• In this amazing season premiere -- it hasn't aired. There is no critical coverage that has described it as amazing, and even if there is, this is the wrong way to present it
• we will eventually find out, We'll meet Angie Bolen -- uses first-person-plural POV (I've tagged this)
• McCluskey falls for a streak salesman called Roy Handler. what is a streak salesman? Does he sell streaks?
• Copyvio: After Julie wakes up, she sees and hears something Angie wished she hadn't seen. She hopes Julie will think she was dreaming, but the doctor doesn't think that is likely. compared with the referenced article's When Julie briefly wakes, she sees or hears something that Angie wishes she hadn't seen. She clearly hopes Julie will think she was dreaming, but the doctor doesn't think that's likely.[23]
• Copyvio: Gabrielle's former gardener boy-toy, John Rowland, returns to Wisteria Lane. As Ana learns that Gaby had an affair with him, she plans to intimidate Gaby by setting her sights on him, because he's single now. Meanwhile, Susan finds a mysterious homeless boy on the street compared with the referenced article's Gabrielle's former gardener boy-toy returns to Wisteria Lane. As Ana learns that Gaby had an affair with John Rowland she sets her sights on him, because he's single now. And Susan finds a mysterious homeless boy on the street.
• Copyvio: Susan and Jake want to buy something to eat, but Jake tells Susan about the affair between Karl and Bree. Ana and John want a future together. compared with the referenced article's Susan and Jake want to buy something to eat, but Jake told Susan about the affair between Karl and Bree! Ana and John want a future together!
• There may be more. It might be wise to Google some sentences and see if and where they pop up.

• There are many other bits of prose that need addressing, but this is a start. Hopefully the summaries will be addressed before the tables get moved to the individual season pages (if that is indeed what happens with them)

References

• TV Guide or any other reliable source should be used as a reference instead of the primary source ABC for the "general ref", which can then be moved to External links
• Sourcing for DVDs relies primarily on sales sites such as EMPiK and Amazon.com. Is there nothing else to cover this information?
• Futon Critic. RS? I'm not sure
• Refs need to be correctly formatted. Website names such as The Futon Critic shouldn't be italicised, and attributions such as "MSNBC.com" and "people.com" should be changed to just MSNBC and People. Date format could also be updated from ISO to "mmmm dd, yyyy" to follow that in the main body of the page.
• Is http://newshows.jimdo.com a RS?

Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the WP:Copyvios. Otherwise no changes have been made yet.... Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist I was thinking of nominating this list for removal, but I couldn't summarize the issues. I agree with most (if not all) of your comments, Matthew.--Crzycheetah 22:26, 15 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 00:05, 24 August 2009 [24].

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey, WikiProject Vancouver. The primary contributor (SRE.K.A.L.24) is already aware.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because this list fails criterion 3b. Every bit of information in this list is in List of Vancouver Canucks players, making this a redundant content fork. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to notify me. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, fails 3b. Theleftorium 19:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How is every bit of information in this list in the other list? The entire lead talks about captains of the team, their relevance etc etc. Which is all different than what is in the other article? I agree it could probably be merged to the other article however. I just wanted to point out that the nom statement isn't that accurate. -Djsasso (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to say that the lead of the other article should have that information. List of Vancouver Canucks players is not quite up to current standards, and more info about the captains should be added to its lead. The second paragraph is an overview of what a captain is; I don't think all of the info there is vital. The third paragraph is a summary of the list, and is not terribly important. List of Chicago Blackhawks players, an FL that is up to current standards, contains sufficient info about what a captain is and a summary of the team's captains. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove – The team's captains can easily be highlighted in List of Vancouver Canucks players, and the lead can be expanded to include information on captains. Most of the columns appear in the player list, with the exception of the seasons spent in the NHL, which isn't vitally important for a Canucks list. Most of the information is or could be in a larger list, causing the page to fail 3b. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I will merge some of the article into Vancouver Canucks, and some of the article into List of Vancouver Canucks players, so it would be nice if no one else does this before me. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Agree with Giants2008 that captains can easily be highlighted in the players list. How's the merging process, SREKAL?--Crzycheetah 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already thought of a plan, but I'll try to show it to you guys in my sandbox by Wednesday (which I'm guessing is the deadline) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline, although this is the 14th day of the nomination—meaning that it can be closed any time now—but if you could draft the merged version when you can (no hurry), that would be great. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest would be tomorrow, or if I have time, today. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already added the second and third paragraph into the main article, and asked User:Nurmsook to add more information into List of Vancouver Canucks players, since he was the FL nominator for the list, and I'm sure he can write a better lead than me. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:05, 16 August 2009 (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 IMatthew 00:05, 24 August 2009 [25].

Notified: Gary King and WikiProject Rock music

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has many issues that need to be solved for it to be a part of our collection.

• • After the redesign of the Billboard website, many pages became unreferenced. If someone could find the right links for those pages that are used as references here, that would improve the page a little.
  • The main problem is the count. The lead and the infobox tell us that there are 10 awards won and 25 nominated, but more awards are listed.
  • About 12 of the award sections need referencing and info about them.
  • Sections fifth through the last need better formatting than what it is now.

Crzycheetah 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also a little worried that some of these awards are bogus, so I really need to see some references.--Crzycheetah 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment According to the Featured list sweeps page, this page fails criterion 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About a week ago, an IP user added a lot of awards see the diff. I am guessing that if/when those awards are formatted and referenced, the list will avoid the 3b criterion.--Crzycheetah 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the newly added awards are true, they need citing and formatting. But if that were the case, the list did not meet comprehensive by a mile, so should never have been listed. If they are fake, this fails 3b, and can easilly be covered in the main article. Personally, i think many of the new awards are true - she was huge worldwide, so there is no way she was not nominated for more European / Australian / Asian awards, especially the regional MTVs.YobMod 13:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist A late 2008 promotion, this is good in terms of the lead and already-formatted awards, but I think it would be best if this was delisted so someone can do thorough research to make sure this is comprehensive and well-referenced; nobody seems to be working on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2009 (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 The Rambling Man 10:23, 15 August 2009 [26].

Notified: Grm wnr, Mac128, WikiProject Macintosh, WikiProject Computing

A 2006 promotion, this does not meet current FL standards. The lead is too short and does not have professional-standard prose. Images need alternative text. The message "Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline" at the top of the timeline is not professional. I think the textual timeline would look better if the tables were merged, so that each table contained one decade, instead of one table for each year as it is now. Lastly, the sources need to be formatted, and what makes http://lowendmac.com/profiles.htm, http://apple-history.com/, and http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/ reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These problems are all fixable. Alt text is irrelevant. Those are indeed reliable, well-reviewed sources. Have you raised these concerns anywhere else before nom? You are using the words "conflated" and "comprised" very incorrectly and your meaning is unclear. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not irrelevant; it is part of the FL criteria, and people who cannot see need it to understand the images. How do you know that the sources are reliable? To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Sorry for the typos and bad word choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FL? says "alt text if necessary. In this article, the alt text would always be identical to the captions which are always visible. Anyway, the illustrations are just pretty pictures.

The sites are well established and have had many years to apply corrections from thousands of readers to their relatively small databases. News sites, in contrast, are often incorrect as they rush to break news.

If your word choice was bad, why not try repeating what you said? Potatoswatter (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt choice is always necessary unless the image is decorative – see WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are decorative. That's what I meant by "just pretty pictures."

Would you like to clarify your conflation of "conflation" or should we strike the text out? Potatoswatter (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fear our alt text discussion is going nowhere, so I will ask someone else to take a look. I thought I refactored my rationale so "conflation" is no longer there. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed the wording. My bad. Potatoswatter (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a enough sources to prove the article is true, i personal do not think th source are particular realible but if they have ben reviewed theni accept they are :) but i think it certainly should be Remove as FL--Andy (talk - contrib) 19:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the alt-text questions above. The phrase "purely decorative" comes from the W3C accessibility guidelines, and is a technical term that means that the image has no function and that if you remove it from the article you won't lose any content. An example of a decorative image would be a " Done" message containing a check mark with no link; the check mark is decorative because it conveys no information and has no function. None of the images in Timeline of Macintosh models are purely decorative in that sense. The image maps convey a huge amount of information to the reader that is present nowhere else in the article, and definitely need alt text. The images of individual computers are functional (something happens if you click on them) and therefore need alt text. The individual images are designed to convey to the user the visual appearance of each computer (that's the point of the images, no?) and so the alt text should describe that appearance, for the benefit of visually-impaired readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing: alt text typically has little in common with captions. Alt text is for people who can't see the image; captions are for both sighted and visually-impaired readers. Typically a caption will not discuss visual appearance (that's what the image is for), whereas alt text talks only about visual appearance. Please see WP:ALT for more. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added alt tags using grep. An image of a Mac looks like an image of a Mac. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for someone who is visually impaired, what does an image of a Mac look like? Now that we have the ability to share what we can see with those less fortunate, by simply taking the time to describe in words what is displayed by an image, what sensible reason can you put forward for not doing it? --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's insane. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To make this a lil more productive, I challenge you to find a single illustration of a mundane object, anywhere on WP but preferably in a featured list, with alt text that describes what the pictured item looks like. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of cutaneous conditions is a featured list that has alt text for every image. For the mundane image Image:Akne-jugend.jpg, for example, the alt text is "Adult forehead with scattered red pimples".
• Obviously it's counterproductive to give File:Macintosh 128k transparency.png the alt text "image of Macintosh 128K". That doesn't help the visually-impaired reader a bit. I suggest reverting that edit, as useless alt text is worse than no alt text.
• Good alt text is not "insane". It's not even that hard to write. Please give it a try.

Eubulides (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. However medical conditions make better illustrations than computer cases. "A plastic box." "A tall plastic box." "Plastic box with monitor in." There are many lists of tallest buildings and other architecture, which I checked before issuing that challenge, and they uniformly don't include alt text. It would be far more interesting to describe the different buildings than "fix" this article. Would you recommend demoting them on this basis? How about List of cast members of The Simpsons or List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes which would make interesting picture-worth-a-thousand-words fodder. The vast majority of FL's do not contain "alt=" at all.

Anyway, the FL requirements do say "when necessary," and this is seriously twisting those words to interpret as "when possible." Potatoswatter (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not true that lists of tallest buildings "uniformly don't include alt text". All the building images in List of tallest buildings in Singapore have alt text.
• Alt-text requirements were recently added to WP:FACR and WP:FL? and it's not surprising that old featured articles and lists don't satisfy the new requirements. There is no need or plan for mass article demotions on alt-text grounds; all that's intended is that articles going through reviews should satisfy the criteria in effect at the time of reviews. This is standard practice when criteria change.
• WP:ALT spells out when alt text is necessary. It follows the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 in saying that alt text is needed for all Wikipedia "thumb" images. There are exceptions for non-"thumb" images, but they don't apply here. All the images in Timeline of Macintosh models are "thumb" images and they all need useful alt text, as per WP:ALT.

Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should've found a chronological list of additions rather than relying on random sampling, I guess. I'm starting not to see your point, then. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that this article's images need useful alt text, as per WP:ALT. The arguments to the contrary aren't flying. Eubulides (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Tables is not necessarily the best solution. There are a significant number of models which are not represented on this timeline yet by year. The resulting decades would be massive tables and unable to be indexed by year at a later date.--Mac128 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline I think the article clearly states at this point that this is Wiki, problem and a recent one at that, for which no explanation has been proposed. To suggest that as a reason to remove FA status would be to say it should be removed because it is not compatible with Internet Explorer browsers. It doesn't change the nature of the article though however unfortunate a reality it is.--Mac128 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I should mention that doesn't really have to do with the FLRC at all; I just wanted to make a mention of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just internet explorer, it fails miserably on firefox as well. Is there a browser it does display on? --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed now. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I agree the sources can be further delineated where possible, but the point is made that many of those listed cross reference each other for confirmation where there is very little available published material available, particularly for discontinuation dates which often go unheralded by the manufacturer and must be tracked by the end-user community. Ultimately these are not claims being made that need exact verification. Some are product introduction dates, some are actual retail shelf dates, some are pre-release press dates from verifiable "Wiki" sources which are simply wrong. In the end they present an aggregate for historical research purposes, in much the same way some historical personalities have unverifiable estimated birth and death dates, often in conflict among scholars. This article presents a summary of information, not available anywhere else and while further verification might be performed, the net result will not significantly alter the information provided in this article.--Mac128 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The database of Everymac in particular is built by user-submitted computer self-diagnostics. It is essentially the best source, and as for expert historians, you're talking to them. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be the best source, but it doesn't meet the standards for WP:RS. Simply put, if information can't be verified by reliable sources, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail RS? It sounds like you have an axe to grind and aren't thinking about your assertions. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even come close to RS. Compare:

Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

(from WP:RS) with:

EveryMac.com does not monitor all content posted and transmitted by members

from Everymac. I would recommend knocking off the personal invective, and spending more time trying to understand basic Wikipedia policies. --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a similar disclaimer at any newspaper site. Of course they monitor (indeed, exclusively maintain) their spec database. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything at the New York Times site saying anything like "The Times does not monitor all content published in the Times by its reporters." Eubulides (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/agree.html#discussions attempts to pass liability to commenters and warns against misbehavior. That's another theory on unruly crowds. The spec database is no more posted by EveryMac members than NYT articles are posted by NYT members. Or maybe you have just imagined a system where submissions via http://www.everymac.com/articles/admin/contact_qa.html are not monitored by the site admins… but I think then the site would be empty! Potatoswatter (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody on Wikipedia would attempt to use content from NYT that had been user-submitted, other than as demonstrating the opinion of a named individual. That sort of content is not a RS for any other purposes, so this is a crimson cleupid. I admit I am having difficulty in imagining where the content on EveryMac comes from. You stated first it is "built by user-submitted computer self-diagnostics", now you seem to be saying that users make submissions, but those are always monitored by site admins (although the disclaimer seems to contradict that notion). Are you relying on the expertise of the site admins to produce accurate content, or does the accuracy originate from somewhere else? In either case, the burden is to show: (1) that there is "a reliable publication process"; and (2) "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Perhaps the best way forward is to show that EveryMac is authoritative on this subject, by some other reliable source acknowledging that. I see that the site is well-established with a Google page rank of 5, so I expect that ought to be a possibility. --RexxS (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recall from some time ago, when I used the executable program called EveryMac, which I believe predated the website, that it had a feature to submit a diagnostic self-report to its creators. That is what I was referring to: not users of the website at all.

Yes, they've been around for a long time and they make it their business to report facts on Apple models. They are very much not a Wiki.

The disclaimer refers to members, ie users of their webforum, which is separate from the feature database. Note that the database info submission page doesn't ask for a member ID, but instead asks for more personal identifying info than would go into a membership account. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist It's been two weeks, and there have been no substantial efforts made to address sourcing and lead issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't WP:!VOTE on your own nom.

I fixed the lead when it was brought up. What concerns do you have with it now?

The sourcing issue was addressed above, although it was never clearly stated. The sources are maintained by dedicated editors of a shareware-funded organization. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, and I can express whether I want it to be delisted or not. When an editor brings a list to FLRC, that doesn't mean they are automatically intending for it to be delisted; I wanted it to be improved to FL standards and kept, not to have it delisted.

The lead is certainly better than when this was brought here, but it still needs work. Things that can be improved:

• "This timeline of Macintosh models" FLs no longer begin in this self-referential way. See recently promoted lists as for examples of more engaging starts.
• WP:FL? says that a featured list should have "an engaging lead that introduces the subject" (bolding mine for emphasis). That means providing context for the reader about what a Macintosh model is and a brief history about the model.
• Finally, like all other articles, the lead must summarize the body of the list. What was the first model? The last? I'm not a Mac user, but I know about some of the more well-known families of models, such as the iBooks, Powerbooks, iMacs. Talk about them.

More on sources and other stuff later. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A !vote is not a vote.

If you bring up new concerns, you should also allow more time to fix them. The first sentence is presently: "This timeline of Macintosh models lists all major types of Macintosh computers produced by Apple Computer in order of introduction date." I believe that provides sufficient context, and the next step in providing context would be to explain what Apple Computer is, which would be unnecessary.

It would help to explain 68K vs PPC vs x86, but that doesn't seem relevant to WP:FL? and it shouldn't be a matter of bringing new complaints as you argue for immediate closure. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLRCs will continue as long as work is ongoing, so you don't have to worry about immediate closure. In the past, FL leads were not required to explain the topic as much (if at all) as they are now. Things have changed; see List of cutaneous conditions for an extreme example of an FL lead (not saying you have to put in that much). Explainations of key differences and families are exactly what we look for in FLs these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments/Issues
  • The lead should state about timeline of Macintosh models, as well.
  • The timeline itself is really long obviously, so I strongly suggest using {{wide image}}.
  • The tables can be merged by decades. Also, the rowspans/colspans can be removed to make the tables sortable.
  • Where are the headings for the 1990s and 2000s tables? The headings should be added when the tables merged.
  • The references need to be cited, so that the reader can easily verify the info they need. Right now, there are 4 general references and it's hard to know what info is taken from any of them.

--Crzycheetah 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• The graphical timeline cannot be printed (click "Printed version" in the toolbox, then "File > Print Preview" in your browser), thus fails WP:ACCESS for those using a printed version of this page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking at this today; it seems like the first priority. I can't find any kind of fix. Even if the scrollbar is removed, the image still cuts off around 2002 in the printable version and gets miniaturized in the PDF version. Is there another featured list with a long timeline? (Seems possible, as lists and timelines go together…) Basically, how do I tell it to scale the image to the page? Then, I should be able to conditionally pass that directive to apply when printing. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can force the image to scale to the width of a page when printing, at least not with CSS; it can probably be done with JavaScript, but we don't have access to that here. It is also possible to remove the image only when printing the article, but I don't know if that's acceptable or not. Gary King (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of popes (graphical) does it by splitting the graph up. There aren't many FL pages with graphs, let alone big ones Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist It's been nominated here long enough. In the last ten days, there are no improvements. The issues are clear here and I think we need to let the main contributors comfortably work on this list without any pressure from this nomination. When all issues are resolved, it can always be re-nominated at WP:FLC.--Crzycheetah 02:45, 13 August 2009 (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 The Rambling Man 19:37, 8 August 2009 [27].

Notified: WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it was promoted way before our 3b criterion discussion, has MOS breaches, has insufficient sourcing, has no alt text (!), an incorrectly sorting table (by name), ISO dates rather than {{dts}} etc etc. Beyond the 3b, it's just showing its age. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this list were delisted due to 3b, where would it be merged (if at all)? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List of first-class cricket records? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Even if this is delisted, I think the table should be fixed up, since that will be merged into the records list. I can't make sense of the dates column; does "1994-06-03, 06" mean that this happened on June 3 and June 6? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suppose that it means it took place between June 3 and June 6. Takes a long time to score a quadruple century in cricket you know! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, well then I'll get to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I'm not too sure. For example, we have "1930-01-04, 6" (skipping 5) but "1948-12-16, 17, 18" (nothing skipped). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I imagine that'll be three days. Most Test matches last five days, so I'd guess that one was scored from 16 through 18 December 1948 (to use American parlance). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the 1930 match had a rest-day, see this link, hence why nothing on the 5th... I imagine it's a bit complex for a non-cricketer...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove – Even if 3b isn't taken into account, this clearly doesn't meet present FL standards.
• External jumps are all over the place. There's one in the lead, ten in the table, and one in a note; these should all be converted to inline citations.
• The lead is entirely composed of stubby one-sentence paragraphs, and could stand to be greatly expanded.
• All of the notes need references.
• The sorting, date formatting, and alt text issues TRM pointed out are still present. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Fails 3b, and is not up to par even if it didn't. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (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 The Rambling Man 12:21, 1 August 2009 [28].

Notified: WikiProject Record Charts, primary contributor already aware of discussion

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there was consensus to merge into one article for the entire decade (discussion). I think this article meets the first criterion of the FLRC speedy-delist criteria, which states that an FL can be speedily demoted if it "has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list". Considering the merge discussion had a clear consensus, in addition to the two previous FLRCs of similar lists, I think this meets that criterion. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per merge discussion. I don't know how I missed this list when I nominated the 93-98 ones. --Crzycheetah 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. I am the primary contributor. I already included the content of this list on the merged List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s and I want to redirect this one to the new one. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist/Merge/Delete with controlling, larger article listed above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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