Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2012
Kept
edit- 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 NapHit 14:32, 29 October 2012 [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Television
I am nominating this for featured list removal as it does not met numerous FL criteria.
- Image is needed
- Unlink television series per WP:OVERLINK
- "30 Rock, a situation comedy television series, premiered on October 11, 2006 in the United States on NBC" → "30 Rock is an American comedy television series that premiered on NBC in the United States on October 11, 2006"
- Then, NBC should be changed to "the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)" in its first mention per MOS:ACRO
- "2007–2008" remove "20" from "2008", doesn't met WP:YEAR
- "which premiered on January 12, 2012."
- The lede is very small, a should be expanded upon, to a preferred three paragraphs with useful details. One sentence paragraph aren't expeactable for FL status.
- Cleanup and copyedits need for lede
- "NBC Universal" shouldn't be spaced
- "Many episodes are named after lines in them ("Everything Sunny All the Time Always", "Emanuelle Goes to Dinosaur Land") that have little relation to their plot." no reference, original research, much stuff like that, etc.
- Ensure table complies with WP:ACCESS for MOS:DTT i.e. row and col scopes.
- Add
plainrowheadersto series overview table for WP:ACCESS and MOS:BOLD - "DVD Release" doesn't met MOS:CAPS
- References needed for viewership, and production codes in some episode tables
- How is TV.com a good source for Wikipedia?
- Don't "shout" in references
- Ref. 54: TV by the Numbers' publisher isn't same, remove
- Cleanup needed for references
- Dead links
- Too many external links per WP:ELNO
- Don't use {{cite web}} for external links
- Categories should be sorted in alphebitcal order
TBrandley 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding some of the nomination.
- Usual practice is not to say "American television series" because it isn't clear whether American refers to the US or the Americas
- Okay, fair enough. TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:ACRO also says that "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym or initialism should be linked.", so it's not necessary to write "National Broacasting Company" in full
- Okay, fair enough. TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, why is an image needed in a list of episodes? I don't understand the current trend for doing this. WP:FL? says a FL should have images "if appropriate to the topic". There is not usually an image that appropriately illustrates a list of episodes of a particular TV series. A titlecard doesn't; it illustrates the series. A photo of the DVD boxsets doesn't; it illustrates the DVD sets. A cast photo doesn't; it illustrates the cast members.
- Then, it needs and should have an image though. Perhaps a picture of a DVD set, the title card, maybe personally, or the show's creators, they actually can work. Many, and all others use images somehow, so. Regards, TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that a photo of a DVD set or titlecard would likely breach non-free content criteria, and that there is no obligation for FLs to have images. We like them very much, but if no appropriate image exists we shouldn't force things. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, it needs and should have an image though. Perhaps a picture of a DVD set, the title card, maybe personally, or the show's creators, they actually can work. Many, and all others use images somehow, so. Regards, TBrandley 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - While I don't agree with some of TBrandley's comments (for instance, I don't think the number of external links is excessive), this list is not up to FL standards. First off, is it acceptable to add in tables through formatting like {{:30 Rock (season 1)}}, rather than actually having the table present in this list? I thought I had seen someplace else that it wasn't, but I could be wrong. Besides that, issues with WP:ACCESS, reference reliability and formatting, and prose are enough to delist. Dana boomer (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not sure the correct term to use to say "Don't delist", but most of the issues brought up above are very minor things that can be easily fixed. I don't think it has that many issues since it has been promoted, that warrants delisting.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? No one is fixing the issues for it to again meet criteria. See Dana boomers' comments also. It has dead links, references are needed for viewership and production codes, etc., and, the whole lead needs to be re-written and expanded. Those are the big ones, and they are not minor. It doesn't meet basicly all of the criteria. TBrandley 17:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist if no-one works on the list, Keep if issues are resolved within the timeframe of this nomination. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist too many issues which don't appear to have been addressed by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – This page is a mess, particularly the lead. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 October 2012 (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 NapHit 14:32, 29 October 2012 [2].
- Notified: WikiProject Astronomy
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's outdated.
- Last entry was 2009, is this award current or defunct? This alone is a delistable offence...
- Dead links.
- Where does it say in each and every source that the "Home" is indeed the "home" country of each recipient?
- "Near-Earth Asteroids" why is asteroid capitalised? See others.
- ALPO, CCD etc, abbreviations used without explanation.
- Sortable table so link everything linkable every time.
- Ensure table complies with WP:ACCESS for MOS:DTT i.e. row and col scopes.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per the society website, the award continues to be given, and so this list is two years out of date. WP:ACCESS considerations also a serious issue. Plus, there are other, more minor, issues as pointed out by TRM. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – Per TRM. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 10:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nom. If these many concerns are addressed, I'm willing to strike my delist vote. TBrandley 19:27, 22 October 2012 (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 [3]
- Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the following issues:
- A maintenance tag I added in June has not been addressed.
- Our referencing demands have improved immeasurably since this nomination passed. The general references don't even seem to back up the article contents. We would now normally expect to see third-party sources referencing each release.
- Teen Idles is The Teen Idles.
- Why doesn't this list feature more information such as release date of each item? Sales? Anything notable?
- Is the label defunct or has it simply not released anything since last year?
- Check dodgy links
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist List is very outdated, not sure it can be brought up to meet the criteria within the timescale of this nom. NapHit (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Way too many primary sources. Also very outdated - the Dischord website lists quite a few new records and re-releases for 2012 that aren't listed here. There is also quite a bit of lacking information, IMO - how well-produced was the music? How well did the records sell? Are there any bands that went on to become big-name hits? How does this label compare to other similar labels? I realize this is a discography, but there should be at least a little bit of (sourced) background on the company, rather than just a listing of names. Missing row and column scopes - WP:ACCESS issues. Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2012 (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 [4].
- Notified: WikiProject Discographies
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article no longer meets the requirements for WP:FLC as it did three years ago. The article cites forums such as this which breach reliability policies, and the references are a complete mess—some of which are missing publishers, while others are completely bare URLs. The tables include certifications from countries that are not part of the table, such as "ITA: Platinum". The lead fails to take into account her most recent album, and various other notable singles that charted highly. Till 15:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. This list is not well written, does not follow the proper discography format, contains a large amount of unsourced content, and yes, the sources are awful. Zac 21:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nom and the actual state of sources. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Article is a mess now. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I have been meaning to raise the FLRC for sometime, but thanks Till for doing this. The article is atrocious. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above. TBrandley 15:42, 14 October 2012 (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 [5].
This April 2007 promotion has numerous issues that lead to it failing the FL criteria of 2012. The following are among the problems:
- There is a factual accuracy tag straight at the top that calls into question whether the list is up-to-date.
- A citation needed tag can be found at the top of the Records section, which is of concern since FLs need to have their information supported by references.
- Ref 6 has been identified as a dead link. Having tags for three different issues is a strong sign that the list needs work to keep its FL status.
- The intro is one of the bold "This is a list of..." openings that are now discouraged in FLs, and the lead as a whole is a little on the short side.
- The table needs row and col scopes, and perhaps a table caption, per WP:ACCESS.
- The international players could be included in a table as opposed to prose, and there's nothing to indicate why the other players listed here are notable.
- Some random style glitches here and there, such as a couple of references that need print publishers italicized and hyphens in ref titles that should be en dashes instead.
All in all, this needs a lot of work to remain an FL. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist list not up to the criteria, per the points Giants makes. Notable players section particularly should be removed. NapHit (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per the concerns raised by Giants. The majority of the article seems to be out of date, as the "as of" notes at the top of at least two sections give dates in early 2011. The Other notable players needs expansion or removal - why are these players notable, what are the references for them being notable? Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.