Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/September 2009

Kept

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

The list was kept by IMatthew 12:44, 26 September 2009 [1].

---

List of Indiana state symbols

Notified: User:Reywas92, WikiProject Indiana

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it's not up to current standards. Specifically,

1. The lead is a one choppy paragraph. It definitely needs to be improved.
   • "The U.S. state of Indiana has twelve official state symbols, as well as other designated official items" - So 12 official symbols along with other official "items", if those official items are not "state symbols" why are they listed here? It's confusing the heck out of me.
   • There's only one citation in the lead that lists some souvenirs and states nothing about the stuff mentioned in the lead.
2. There's a huge amount of white space in the tables. At least one new column in the tables is needed.
   • It can be something like "Description", where the symbol is described in 2-3 sentences.
   • A separate column for references may be needed, as well.
   • The sections can be scrapped and a new column "type" can be added, where it can say "insignia", "species" etc
3. There's a lack of references
   • All items should have an individual citation
   • The reference for the state food currently does not work.
   • Most of the references are from in.gov, but "Indiana Historical Bureau" and "State of Indiana" are listed as the publisher of that website.
   • PDF files need to be mentioned as such, use "format="

--Crzycheetah 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. These things can easily be fixed, and references easily found. I am unable to get to all this today, but would be glad to this weekend. I do agree some work needs done. In regards to the official items, they are also state symbols, just not titled as such. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have removed (I think) all of the pdf references and updated them. In regards to publisher on IN.gov, the site has different sections with different publishers in each area. the history section is maintained by the IHB for example, so publishers will vary depending on the section of the site being references. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, first, I'm very surprised to see this here. This list was not on Scorpion's FL audit earlier this year, but the two other symbol lists, both passed before Indiana, are listed there but are not on FLRC. Most of these problems are very simple and will be taken care of soon. Reywas92^Talk 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that this list isn't in the FL audit because all 3 symbol FLs look alike to me. I also thought to post these comments on the talk page first, but decided to create a formal review instead. About 2 months after this list was promoted, the Alabama list was nominated and rejected, see here. I like the current updates, except linking the titles of the refs. When you put a link as title, it won't take the readers to the specified websites.--Crzycheetah 01:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I added it to the audit page. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remaining issues
  • I still don't see which ones are the other official items.
  • Don't link the titles of the references. It's blocking the links to the websites.
  • Why the word "flag" in italics?
  • Since there's one table only, there's no need to force width.
  • Don't bold word inside the table.
  • Sorting for the "year" column does not work correctly. If you sort 3 or more times, you'll see what I mean.
  • Notes A and B need citations.
  • As for the in.gov website, I think the publisher is the State of Indiana. It publishes the works of its departments, such as Indiana Historical Bureau.

--Crzycheetah 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • For your first point, I am not sure I understand your question. There are official emblems, all of which are listed in Title 1 Article 2, as stated. Which is the flag, seal, song, poem, etc. The "other official items" are those which are not emblems and not part of Title 1 Article 2, but are codified as official items elsewhere, and additionally the non-official state nickname. Short of listing each item in the lead and indicating whether it is an emblem or not an emblem, how do you propose we show the difference? I have changed the wording already to show that they are all symbols, but some are official emblems, while others are official things, just not emblems. Do you propose we remove those things which are not emblems, which would leave only six or so items on this list?
    • For the linking titles of references, are you referring to the links for Indiana Code? Both the external and internal link are working for me. WP:CITE#HOW also says to link to the website's (which can be construed as the work's) article within Wikipedia in addition to linking to the external source. By my interpretation, the MOS requires both to be linked.
    • Flag is italicized to put emphasis on the word. The article says the "state banner was renamed the state flag". The MOS recommends calling emphasis to a word in this type of situation, when the word itself is the point of the sentence. The point is the changing of the name (word), perhaps "banner" should also be italicized? (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting))
    • Bolding removed
    • The sorting is correct for me when I sort it, "Holidays" being the only exception because there is three years within the same column. Is that what you are referring to? if so we can separate it into three columns easily enough.
    • Sources added for A and B
    • State of Indiana is a very broad term and the website is very large, and the different sections of the website are most likely managed by different bureaus, not by one centralized "website" group. The way they are tied to the bureaus, and especially the various pages for officials, its pretty obvious they are posting their own stuff. Either way, it seems to me more logical to refer to the bureau that created the data, and under who's name it is listed. The section of the website where it is at clearly indicates it belongs to the Indiana Historical Bureau and it is they who are making it available to the public. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I was referring to the Indiana Code link. I don't know why, but the external link doesn't show for me. I'd suggest leaving the "title=" unlinked and add the "work=[[Indiana Code]]".
      • As for sorting, did you try to sort the "year" column in descending order? When I sort it in descending order, "January 23, 2009" comes 14th out of 17 items. It looks weird to say the least.
      • Just so you know, your current refs # 8 and 23 link to the same webpage.

--Crzycheetah 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks for helping out with this Charles! I don't think I like the new Type column. That implies that it is an actual term that may be sourced, but it's really an arbitrary way to sort them. I significantly prefer the sections. They are just general, self-explanatory groupings, not something integral or connected to the symbol that should be within the table. Honestly, I don't think any one of the columns really needs to be sortable, even the dates. Reywas92^Talk 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with you. Fix it up however you think looks best, you are more experienced with lists than I. :) The type is rather arbitrary, I agree. I wast just attempting to accommodate the recommendation. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment What's left to be done here? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are no descriptions for these symbols. Take a look at the Tennessee's list for an example.--Cheetah (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well do you want each one to have a separate subsection? I don't. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily. I' like to see it in the "symbols" column. Since that column isn't sortable anyways, A couple of sentences can be added next to each symbol. Something like "flag of Indiana - The stars in the flag represent this and that. The gold torch represent this." I just feel like this list isn't fully passing the "...it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items" part in the 3a criterion.--Cheetah (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Descriptions have been added to all symbols. I believe all concerns have been taken care of. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Please try to have all remaining issues resolved by this coming Tuesday. iMatthew ^talk at 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Thank you so much for the descriptions! The only description that was a little silly is the description of water. Was there a particular reason why water became official beverage? Other than that, I think this list is greatly improved.--Cheetah (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I couldn't think of anything, and my source doesn't have much, so I just came up with that. Water really has no significance. Sorry for taking so long to improve them, and thank you for your support. Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was kept by IMatthew 12:44, 26 September 2009 [2].

---

List of snakes of Trinidad and Tobago

Notifed: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, WikiProject Caribbean, Guettarda

User:Dabomb87 edited this page a month ago with an edit comment about what needs doing, but nothing has happened so far.

My main concern is that there is only one source for referencing, and it is used as some sort of general ref, without page numbers for each entry or any other inline cites. The book isn't available at any branches of County of Los Angeles Public Library or I would have done this myself. Are there any other books or websites on this subject?

I'm not impressed with the "X" and empty cells either. {{yes}}/{{no}} could be used instead. Where are the sources for the footnotes? The book again, I presume, but we don't know that. Since the page relys on one source, anything could have been added and we wouldn't know.

There isn't much prose, but as with most of the older FLs, it could do with being updated a little. Pages should't start with "This is a list of snakes that have been recorded in Trinidad and Tobago" any more. The sentence "Snakes have only been recorded on one island off Tobago, Little Tobago." makes it sound like "Tobago, Little Tobago" is a place, but that isn't what it means. Probably that Little Tobago is the only island off Tobago where snakes have been found.

It would be unfortunate to see this delisted, it's one of the least populated topics at FL. Some more references and formatting, and a bit of prose TLC is all that is needed to save it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Boos' book is pretty definitive on the topic. Murphy's book (which I don't have access to) on the reptiles of TT should cover much of this ground, but it's older and less detailed. I've seen a list of snakes on a page associated with the TT biodiversity clearinghouse, but it was an (uncredited) copy of this page. Most of the records are supported by museum collections (many of the Boos' own work) rather than publications in the literature. So no, there's no other comparable source that I am aware of.
• As for getting this done in two weeks - highly doubtful. I'm not home right now, and once I get home I'll have an insane amount of work to do (entirely restructuring a course) in the week before classes start.
• I agree that the lead could use work. Again, I'm a little hampered by the fact that I don't have access to either to a decent library right now. Guettarda (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If there's a chance that the list can be improved within a reasonable amount of time, the directors can wait. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. We'd need to seem some concrete improvements within the next two weeks, but yes, as Minnesota Vikings and Macs go to show, some effort goes a long way in keeping the directors happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Guettarda is making good progress. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is any more progress being made? iMatthew ^talk at 12:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's left to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that - the week before classes start is crazy (a lot busier than I had anticipated, actually), and the first week of classes was worse (had to ban myself from Wikipedia). With regards to what needs to be done;

• The section headers shouldn't be links, per the MOS (or at least that was the case the last time I looked). But subfamilies of snakes are a tad too obscure to mention without links, so each would need a few words of explanatory text beneath the header (like they do in the "list of birds" FLs). Have to find a good source for that - poked around our library, but couldn't find a good single source that dealt with snake families.
• The lead is still weak, and makes a couple statements that aren't explicitly linked to a source, and which cannot simply be deduced from sourced info in the article. So that still needs work.

Will get back to it as soon as I can (next day or two). Hope that's timely enough progress. Guettarda (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • There's no hurry. Take your time; you're doing a great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, if you want a template as to how to format the article, check out List of lemur species. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep, just a (probably unnecessary) note to say that as long as the list is being continually improved, this nomination will remain open (and open-minded). Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

*Comments The WP:MOS says we should not have links in section headings, and in particular should avoid linking part of the section headings for accessibility reasons. More info at WP:HEAD. Never overwhelmed with tables containing a single entry - has anyone considered merging these nine sections into one main table containing all 47 snakes, and moving the links previously in the section headings into new columns (sortable)? Placement of references is inconsistent, sometimes after a space, sometimes directly after text. "Trinidad and Tobago. – forty-four " - surely no need for the full stop. While not mandated anywhere (that I can find), I'd prefer to see references in numerical order. No need to overlink Trinidad or Tobago in the lead. "most diverse in the Caribbean. " quite a claim - can you cite this? "Bocas Islands" - any reason why this is in quotations? You link Bushmaster, Fer-de-lance etc in the lead, but not the Common Coral. Be consistent. Ref 50 needs a space post-semi colon. Butterflies should not be capitalised. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I went through and did all changes except for points 1, 2, and 7. The general ones, I feel the table though should be left to the main contributor.--Lightlowemon (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I did a sample edit for how the linking in section headers can be remedied, and at the same time some context can be provided—someone who knows more than me about snakes should probably do this. See also List of birds of Maryland for an example of this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Update: I'm slowly chipping away at point one, and hopefully will have it done by Sunday. As for point two, I prefer the current organization of the article, which makes more biological sense and matches the format of the recently promoted Maryland birds list and the lemurs lists. As for point 7, I'll comment out the claim if no one can find a cite; hopefully it's in Boos 2001 and Guettarda can restore the claim when he adds a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - well done to everyone concerned in resolving issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Notice: If the above comments are not resolved by this Tuesday, I'll be delisting this. iMatthew ^talk at 13:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Definitely meets the criteria. If the list could be improved in any way, I would suggest making the individual tables sortable, and adding to the lead. Also, if there is information about the conservation status of the snakes, that would be useful. However, none of these is a dealbreaker; kudos to Guettarda for the referencing. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was kept by IMatthew 12:44, 26 September 2009 [3].

---

List of recognised political parties in India

Notified: WP:INDIA

There's a note on the talkpage which hits the nub of the problem here - it needs updating. It has a maintenance tag, the two PDF refs are dead, the third ref is probably not a reliable source. There's a missing image, it needs some work on the lead, and perhaps those tables could be reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment All images need alternative text, and there's a deleted image in the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The PDF links were fixed , and the image reqplaced by GDibyendu. [4] [5] make the thirld link seem reliable. Abeer.ag (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent! Now, the lead needs to be reworked to get rid of that "This is a list of..." beginning. If you remove that first sentence, the introduction would be much improved without any more rewriting. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • done Hometech (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments/Issues
  • Is this a list of recognised or registered parties in India? The lead says registered, but the page's title says recognised.
    • done Hometech (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead needs to be sourced
    • done Hometech (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Bahujan Samaj Party's symbol is deleted(?)
    • done Hometech (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The tables need to be formatted per current standards, i.e. be sortable, have borders
    • done There is a black border now. Enuf? Hometech (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Notes are not formatted properly, as well

--Crzycheetah 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment It seems that some improvements have been made, though not in the last five days. Is anybody working on the above issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Most of the above things are done. Hometech (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am rather pressed IRL now, but some things that I can see...
  • Still need WP:ALT text for all images (including the logos).
    • alt text or the "link=" field, what do u advise? Hometech (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • For the parties, I suggest merely transcribing the name of the symbol as listed in the symbol, e.g., for File:ECI-elephant.png I suggest simply "ELEPHANT" (there's no need to give details about what the elephant looks like, nor to name the party again). For the lead image (the map) I suggest a brief description of the overall pattern, e.g., "The BJP and its coalitions led state governments in a broad east-west stripe across the country ..." (you fill in the blanks, and I'm sure you can do a better job than this). Eubulides (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I see work has started on this. A small point: please try to transcribe the text as accurately as possible without interpretation. For example, the current alt text for Image:ECI-corn-sickle.png is "ears of corn and a sickle" but the actual text in that image is "EARS OF CORN & SICKLE" and it's better to write it that way. Please see WP:ALT#Text for more on this. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Alt text added for the remaining images, but the map's alt text still needs improvement in accordance with Eubulides' guidance. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why all the capital letters and bold text?
  • The introduction still reads a little weakly to me - for instance, the first sentence makes no direct reference to political parties.
  • Names usually sort by surname, with use of the {{sortname}} template.
  • Is it "Chief" or "Party leader"?
    • Done. Hometech (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You start the second table with a discussion over the symbols used, but these are present (mainly) in the first table as well.
    • Done. Hometech (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Acronym or Acr.
    • Done. Hometech (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see the tables with consistent column widths from section to section.
  • I don't like blank cells, they tend (in my opinion) to leave me wondering if they're an oversight or simply no information exists. Would prefer en- or em-dash with a note in each case explaning the detail's absence.
  • There's still a maintenance tag on the article (which has been there a while)...
    • Done. Hometech (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the symbols, each party has one, and each could be added, I think. As I said on my talk page over a week ago:

The current symbols, as of 14 March 2009, seem to be specified in this official notification; and the actual symbols are printed in the ECI's 2007 Handbook of political parties and election symbols. The notification says that the BSP's symbol is the elephant, except in Assam and Sikkim, where they have to choose one of the free ones (because the elephant is used by Asom Gana Parishad there). The official symbols are shown on page 87 onwards of the Handbook ...

The original image, File:ECI-elephant.png, was hosted at Commons but deleted there in December 2007 (see the Commons deletion log). I don't know why that one was deleted, but the other ones - File:ECI-lotus.png for example - were retained. Perhaps we need to ask a commons admin to help? I suspect it could be restored if an appropriate copyright tag can be applied, as for the other ones.

I hope that helps. -- Testing times (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Remaining issues
  • The first paragraph is too short
    • Done
  • What does light blue in the tables indicate?
    • I dont get that what you mean. Hometech (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • GDibyendu took care of it before you.--Cheetah (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is National People's Party's year is blank along with Save Goa Front's?
    • Done
      • The party doesn't have a leader? If so, an explanation is needed.--Cheetah (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not recognised anymore. Hometech (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • web123india.com OR webindia123.com? Why is this reliable?
    • Done
  • Can the notes use letters to avoid confusion?
    • Done
      • They still use numbers in the "notes" section.--Cheetah (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Done
  • Notes 1-3 should be sourced
    • Done
  • Note#4 is not working properly
    • Done
  • Specific ref#2 is a note and should be under the "notes" section. The source of this note should be a formatted reference.
    • Done

--Cheetah (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment National People's Party is a dab link. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done Hometech (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be linked to an appropriate page, even if that page doesn't exist yet.--Cheetah (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Done

If the remaining issues are not resolved by 8 September, this list will be delisted. Please check all outstanding comments carefully, and address them expediently. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC) *Most have been resolved. Hometech (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• • UPDATE All are done now. Hometech (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why do some parties have have "None" in their symbol columns, while others just have blank cells? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Notice: Please address Dabomb87's concern so that I am able to close this by Tuesday. iMatthew ^talk at 13:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My image cell concern is not a deal-breaker, but I would like to see the map alt text improved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Besides the Dabomb's concern, there's also remaining concerns from TRM. iMatthew, before closing this nomination, please check to see whether the concerns TRM brought up are met. As of today, the sorting problem is not met, for example.--Cheetah (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's also a dead link that needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed image column and sorting issue—Chris!_c/t 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was kept by IMatthew 13:57, 12 September 2009 [6].

---

List of Super Bowl champions

Notified: WP:NFL, Phoenix2, Instinct, Orlady, Psantora, Zzyzx11

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I left some concerns on the talk page two weeks ago that have gone unresolved. One other editor agreed with my comments, which actually echo comments left by other editors over a year ago.

Two people have raised concerns about sortability of the tables, and the issues still exist over a year later. In the NFL Championships table, the Game column is sorted alphabetically -- err, they're Roman numerals. They should be sorted by number. The score column sorts by winning score only. What about the losing score? Either find a way to sort both, or don't sort it at all. The venue column doesn't sort LandShark correctly, and the City column sortability is completely messed up. When I click on the button, it just sends me to the top of the page.

The footnotes use an archaic form that needs updating per WP:FOOT, References are too reliant on primary sources, and there should not be any rows for future games, since there are no champions yet. I've tried to remove these twice, but another editor claims that it was promoted to WP:FL like this; it wasn't. They've crept in somewhere during the last 18 months.

The "See also" section is way too big and ugly. It's like editors come along and add any article they find with the words "super" and "bowl" in their title, so much so that now it's actually a deterrent to click on these links, where one, two, or three could actually be of some value. The tables make use of WP:COLORS incorrectly, as there is no accompanying text such as daggers or asterisks per WP:ACCESS, and one reference doesn't even work.

Currently, it fails Criterion 3, because it includes Superbowls that haven't happened, Criterion 4 due to its sortability issues, Criterion 5 for color and visual appeal, and WP:V. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed all the sorting and WP:COLOR issues. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

City and stadium sorting work properly now. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Further update: footnotes have been modernized and See also has been cut down to four links. As for the primary sources, I've replaced them for more than half the Super Bowls with secondary sources, and I estimate their overall usage has been cut in half. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Further to my comment on the article's talk page, I suggest that the list requires another table listing each Super Bowl winner and the number of times they have won, similar to the table at List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners#Results by clubs. If I wanted to see, at a glance, which team had won the most Super Bowls, I wouldn't want to have to trawl through the main table looking for each team's name. – PeeJay 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl wins by team, though I believe that article should be merged into this one, per what you said. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Psantora merged that table into this list. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment What make http://sandiego.about.com/od/prosports/a/stadium_names.htm and http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/MiamiDolphins/index.htm reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said below, I got rid of these two. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think we can effectively remove "Superbowls that haven't happened" in the long run unless there is a separate List of Super Bowl host cities. The problem is that both the dates and sites for each Super Bowl are officially announced several years in advance. It seems to me that throughout its history, many new users and anonymous IPs treat it more as List of Super Bowls than List of Super Bowl champions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So should we rename the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not if List of Super Bowl wins by team gets merged into the article. – PeeJay 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it is fairly appropriate to put the next Super Bowl, even if there is no champion for that game, just for the readers' convenience, but I do not believe it should be renamed to List of Super Bowls, as later Super Bowls can be mentioned in the main article. The only things I could like to see is that both List of Super Bowl appearances and List of Super Bowl wins by team be merged into this one, and have the references pointed out by Dabomb to be fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Forgot about wanting both tables to be merged. Anyone disagree with what I am saying? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment "Rose Bowl" and "Orange Bowl" link to the articles about the college games rather than the stadiums. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm going to do everything in my power to save this one, whatever it takes, and will comment on the issues above as I go through them. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Replaced the two questionable sources with pages from the ESPN website. Also dropped a bit from the Dolphin Stadium note, since it wasn't backed up by the new source or my trusty ESPN Almanac.
  • Sorting works in the Game column. The only way to have both scores sort would be to split them; that's not my idea of visualy appealing, so I recommend removing the sort function from that column. Venue sorting is okay, except for the 2010 contest, and City is still off.
  • I assume the archiac formatting is for the notes directly below the table?
  • Will make a run to get secondary sourcing put in place, and will look for a replacement for the dead link. Don't love the 2010 entry, and wouldn't mind seeing it be hidden like the others.
  • Agree on trimming See also. The colors have been given symbols since the review began; I don't think they look so hot, but that's a subjective opinion. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - I was a bit surprised by the invitation to this discussion, as it has been a very long time since I got involved with this list (basically, the last time it was listed at FLRC). The current list article is much better than it was back then, and appears that most (if not all) of the issues listed by MatthewEdwards are now resolved.
  • This is a very informative list, covering more than just "who won?", but therein lies a problem. List of Super Bowls is a redirect to this page, which explains why users treat it as if it were List of Super Bowls. Creating a separate list at that location -- and including in it links to more specialized list articles such as this one, List of Super Bowl wins by team, List of Super Bowl halftime shows, etc. -- would make it easier to avoid clutter on this page. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there a problem with primary sources if we are just using it for basic "descriptive" information such as the date, teams, score, and location for the games? (From WP:PRIMARY: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.") Also, how does having future games violate the "Comprehensiveness" criterion? If anything I would expect the absence of these games to make the list incomplete. ~ Paul^T+/_C 01:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Primary sources are fine for most of the data in the list. Some of the footnotes might need secondary sources (WRT stadiums). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In regard to the stadium cites, are you referring to those from the U.S. census or the NFL? There are several of the former, but only one NFL.com link. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Don't care if the future games or added or not. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Looks good. Except "The Kansas City Chiefs and New York Jets have not appeared in the Super Bowl since the AFL–NFL merger in 1970," doesn't have a ref. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Added a cite. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Is a citation even necessary? That information can easily be gleaned by looking at either list in the article. ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Delisted

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

The list was removed by IMatthew 12:44, 26 September 2009 [7].

---

List of micronations

Notified: WP Politics, WP Micronations, Micromaster, Ckatz, Andrwsc, Hiberniantears , Yopie, J Milburn

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet standards for:

(6.) Stability. In the last five weeks there were some 15 reverts, encompassing the majority of the article edits during that time. I.e., practically everything that is being written is being reverted.

These edits include changes by editors User_talk:Peebles05, User_talk:PresidentHogan001, and User_talk:Jackbert, who made no other contributions to Wikipedia. According to administrator User_talk:Hiberniantears, the topic of micronations in general has had "countless AfD's and RfC's". [8]. This subject appears to have been unstable both in the short and long term.

(4.) Structure. The concept of "micronation" covers imaginary, temporary, and physical entities. The table of micronations is simply an alphabetical list that lumps together current, past, imaginary, real, serious and fatuous entities. It's a hindrance to understanding the scope or practical implications of micronations. Two citations that I checked at random were wrong, and one misleading. The unstructured nature of the table encourages uncited entries that are probably non-notable, such as the one I just removed by anon IP 213.106.39.185 (an editor with no other Wikipedia edits).[9] Without structure the list is difficult to protect from vandalism.

(3.) Comprehensiveness. It is critically deficient in that the source is largely a single reference, John Ryan's Micronations (over half the references). His criteria for inclusion — which is the basis for the majority of the table entries — eliminates "landless, virtual nations". [10]. However the Wiki article says it includes nations that are "online, in the minds of their creators". I.e., the primary source and the article have largely different definitions. The Micronations book also avoids micronations that are "fraudlent scammers". The Wiki article says that it will include criminal states. The definition of "micronation" is not coherent, perforce the table cannot be comprehensive.

The article does not meet WP:WIAFL for "reliable sources". Many come from Micronations. This primary source, reads "So whether you're a reactionary, a visionary, a prankster, an egomaniac, or a gun-toting anti-government conspiracy theorist, there's sure to be something here for you". I.e., some material in the book is a prank or a fringe theory. The primary source is unreliable.

Moreover, at this point I have now checked some 10 of the references. There were problems with several, including mis-quoting, misrepresenting, and in one case was the external reference was to a Wiki-blocked site. The references that remain include a broken link [11], links to untranslated non-English pages[12], [13], and links to articles that are trivial [14]. By no stretch of the imagination do the citations represent the highest standards of Wikipedia.

Piano non troppo (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Can you list the completed notifications at the top, as in Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive2? Also, are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. My selection criteria were, roughly, editors who made over 10 edits since the beginning of the year (who were not primarily criticized for making vandalism edits).

I didn't see any particular project to notify. Suggestions welcome. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The ones on the talk page, at least. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I echo everything stated above by Piano non troppo. This topic has been a joke for years. However, there is value within the topic. I.e. a micronation is definitely a thing that deserves coverage here. This article, and related articles were hijacked a long time ago by individuals who seek to promote a boundless definition of micronations. As Piano has described, the sources are tenuous, and the definitions of a micronation know no bounds. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Would it help if we restored the article to the version at which it was promoted? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the primary concern isn't really focused on an older version being better than a newer version, so much as the topic itself not being appropriate for featured status to begin with. For example, take a look at the definition of "micronation" in the dictionary... see the problem? This topic has no credible definition, which is not a rarity for Wikipedia, but one could argue that if micronations had existed as a recognized entity for the amount of time the micronation articles assert, then we might have a dictionary definition. A lot of the micronation articles have been abused for the purpose of self-promotion, and we do an intellectual disservice to any casual readers who stumble upon micronation articles in Wikipedia as they end up walking away deeply misinformed about the topic. Taking four examples from the list, I think we get a representative idea of how a variety of very different subjects are innapropriately grouped together in order to innapropriately lend credence to modern internet clubs that bill themselves as micronations:

• Empire of Atlantium - A club run by George Cruickshank, aka User:Gene Poole.
• Islands of Refreshment - Between 1811 and 1816, a small group of sailors set themselves up as farmers on an uninhabbited island in the Atlantic Ocean known as Tristan da Cunha. The guy who declared the island his sovereign territory died in 1812. Unlike the Empire of Atlantium, the Islands of Refreshment did not sell their stamps and coins on the internet, and create a Wikipedia article for the purpose of self-promotion.
• Principality of Marlborough - Back in 1993 an Australian farmer got behind on his bills, resulting in his bank attempting to reposses his farm. In a tantrum, the farmer declared his farm an independent country. This last eleven days, at which time the police stormed the farm and evicted him.
• New Utopia - An internet fraud that ended when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission took legal action against it.

These things are simply unrelated, and presenting a list of them as a featured article only undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist due to short-term stability issues—the article is at AfD and the edit warring is concerning—long-standing disagreements on what constitutes a micronation, leading to inherent stability and comprehensive concerns (especially scope); and the apparent unreliability of the book source. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Following my comments, and those of User talk:Hiberniantears and Dabomb87. Also I'll add that the main source seems like a whimsical exercise from publisher of non-political subjects -- travel guides. I'm not the only person who thinks so...this (blog) classifies it as a "travel humor book". [15] The publisher is not established on this topic, the book itself is not reliable, and the Wiki article's references are variously misquoted, misleading, non-English. This is one of those potentially worthy subjects where external scholarship is lagging. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. It was promoted at a time when FLC was suffering from a lack of reviews (and a lack of quality reviews) to the point that one support was considered consensus. At the time of its FLCs, this list suffered from the same issues listed above (except the stability issue). WP:FL? demands it "comprehensively covers the defined scope", yet there is no defined scope here, micronations are added on a whim (no inclusion/exclusion criteria). --maclean (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was removed by IMatthew 13:57, 12 September 2009 [16].

---

List of WarCry band members

Notified: Rockk3r, WikiProject Metal

Obvious for the regulars why I nominated this for FLRC. For those you don't know, read featured list criteria 3b. I will try to make a visual of what i would look like if merged into the main article by tomorrow. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you make a merge in your sandbox? I am pretty sure this list fails 3b, but I want to see the merged version in order to be completely sure.--Cheetah (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot about this. The only thing that will be added to the main article would be the timeline, since the others are already in the article. Everything else I believe are already in the main article, so there's practically no point. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 09:42, 5 September 2009 [17].

---

List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches

Notified: Shudde, WikiProject Rugby union, WikiProject New Zealand

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't meet the current FL standards for prose, the lead and the tables. Prose: The lead starts of with the non-engaging "This is a list of", which FLs should no longer use. The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list more and provide more context. Some statements need references ("The squad of 26 was privately organised and was composed mainly of players of Maori ancestry, although several Pakeha were included in the squad." The image needs alt text. The sortability of the tables needs to be fixed (or implemented in the case of "Rugby matches"), and the dates in the tables should be converted to a more human-readable format (using {{dts}}). Some of the terms in the tables need links or a key. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dates have been changed to dts standard, though I can't see which terms within the table need links or a key? FruitMonkey (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably "Behinds". Nice work so far. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove – Fixable, but several problems cause the list to fail FL criteria at the moment:

• The lead is still quite short, and leaves me wanting to know more about the team. I would expect two or three paragraphs in the lead of a sizable FL.
• Remove apostrophe from "oversea's" in first sentence.
• "I see both "its" and "their" in reference to the team; one is singular, and the other is plural. There should be consistency in usage.
• Hyphen after "was the first by a New Zealand rugby team" should be an en dash, or unspaced em dash depending on preference.
• As Dabomb said, a source for the team's ancestry should be provided.
• Several columns in the tables have broken sorting. Clicking the button directs me to the top of the page.
• See also link is an unnecessary duplication of a link in the lead.
• Manningham is a disambiguation link.
• The image needs alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist per Giants and some of my unresolved comments. I'm willing to reconsider if someone who knows the topic puts in the time (not too much work is needed). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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