Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/April 2021
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: Town of Cats, WikiProject Discographies
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets our accessibility guidelines as required under WP:FLCR #5. Specifically, the tables have no captions, and they lack unique row-headers, which should be the title of the release in each case. RexxS (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: but why not fix it to comply rather than nominating for removal? Like you said, MOS:DTAB indicates that scopes and captions should be used. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to fix every FL with accessibility flaws. I think it's preferable to teach an active WikiProject how to fix the FLs themselves. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added
scope="col"to each column. Honestly, I think a bigger issue would be most of the references going to Amazon store pages. The accessibility issues described are easy to rectify, but if there aren't reliable sources, then that indicates deeper issues. (Edit: Looks like Amazon is OK for release dates. Not sure about the notes, however, but since most of them are basically "they did this one song" or are cited to Oricon, I would guess it would be fine? I don't know.) MSG17 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added
- I don't have time to fix every FL with accessibility flaws. I think it's preferable to teach an active WikiProject how to fix the FLs themselves. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update JohnFromPinckney has thoroughly overhauled the article, and all tables now have captions, sensible row headers and appropriate scopes. It may be that all of these types of FL dating from 2010 and earlier need a similar makeover to bring them up to our current standards, but I believe that Abingdon Boys School discography should now remain a Featured List. Hopefully the FLC director or delegates will agree and we can close this nomination. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I updated the tables to the correct format and simplified the refs by using the full chart archive, instead of linking to all positions indiviudally. —Lirim | Talk 23:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stated issues with the list have been fixed, and there is no consensus to delist at this time. As a side note, thank you RexxS for nominating this- we should probably do an large-scale accessibility review of our older FLs, but in the meantime this nomination prompted me to start doing structured accessibility reviews of our active FLCs, which has already started to lead to repeat nominators fixing accessibility issues prior to nomination. --PresN 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is long overdue. It was promoted in 2014 following this discussion which was overwhelmed by User:Vensatry, User:Sahara4u (because it favors them) giving the impression that it is being vetted properly without any regard to WP:NLIST and the fact that whole list is sourced with ESPNcricinfo match reports. No credible source discusses it as a set or group which is required so this list, in fact, fails WP:NLIST. Its counterpart List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Bellerive Oval and many others were deleted recently for the same reason. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium. Thanks. Störm (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and speedy close. This is not an alternative venue for AFD. If you don't think the topic is notable, list it for deletion, as you have with literally hundreds of other cricket articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and speedy close. This is an attempt to circumnavigate AFD. If Störm wants to nominate for AFD, they are allowed to do so, but FLRC is not the appropriate venue for this. Also, not all sources are Cricinfo, and we should be assuming good faith on editor's motives, which the nominator clearly fails to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph2302 No, I'm not circumnavigating. I was unaware of the process. I thought it is not possible to delete a FL through AfD without delist. I am withdrawing this nom. Someone may speedy close this. Störm (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose per The Rambling Man and Joseph2302. I'd add further to that that I don't think this is a good faith nomination. The previous AfDs the nominator cites do NOT set a precedent for this page. He knows that full well and yet continues to make disruptive nominations to delete cricket articles like this one. Deus et lex (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and agree with User:Deus et lex that this, in light of the nominator's recent history- which saw him brought to ANI, where he gave a commitment not to AfD cricket articles, which he has now recanted from- may not be in good faith. The article is impeccably sourced, and if the nominator is particularly vexed by Cricinfo as a source, the same citations can easily be converted to Wisden, as every single international century has been listed there. To say that 'no credible source' contains this type of list is simply incorrect; see, for example, page 399 of Wisden 2004, which contains exactly the same type of list for the 2003 English domestic season. Earlier Wisdens are even more comprehensive (for example, my 1954 Wisden at pp. 180-182 has a list of every test century ever scored in the history of the sport, with exactly the same information of score, batsman, venue and year as is contained in this list). As such the nomination also betrays a startling lack of knowledge of the subject on which the nominator seeks to opine. I note the nominator's comment above; however, in light of previous recantations of statements, I wanted to place my views on this nomination on the record in case of another volte-face. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This FLRC was inevitable due to the nominator being wrongly advised on several occasions at AFD (by multiple editors, who thankfully have not chimed in here) that FLs were not suitable candidates for deletion and would need to be delisted first. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
There are barely any pictures on this page, probably due to a mass purge of UAE building images on Commons some years ago. I might try to add some more images to this page in the next few weeks, but for now I don't think it deserves to be featured. Kestreltail (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kestreltail Pictures can be added with the WP:FLRC process, what part(s) of WP:WIAFL does this fail? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the pictures, a number of red links. Kestreltail (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kestreltail Red links are permitted. What proportion of the items in the list are red links? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 24 out of 74 items, or about a third. There are also some red links surprisingly near the start of the list, but if none of these are considered problems then I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Kestreltail (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Wow, I have not seen a featured list with such lack of citations, some entire tables missing citations, random facts missing citations. It also has wild (possibly outdated) speculation running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, and has outdated style "This list ranks". Says "currently under construction" with no indication of what "currently means". Will be a lot of work to bring this up to standard. Mattximus (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the main list is fine. The under construction section needs some updating. Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist In the "Tallest buildings" section there are 28 listings with no refs and the other sections are not better. I don't know much about tall buildings but are there really no other sources than SkyscraperPage.com and CTBUH? Also I think ref columns should be at the end of the table, not in between. Using "37=" to clarify that buildings are tied in height is inefficient. rowspan exists for a reason. — Lirim | Talk 00:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although there's one keep here, I'm going to go ahead and delist- while the issues the nominator brought up may or may not be an issue, the large lack of citations are pretty glaring. Lots of the buildings are unreferenced, parts of the list seem out of date from at least 2019 (or at least additions have been made piecemeal and the wording not cleaned up for other parts), and after 3 months there's not much movement on this list. --PresN 19:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was removed by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Notified: Gary, Cordyceps-Zombie, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Politics
This is an old 2008 promotion, and it seems to have not been maintained in the interim. The lead is quite short and contains only two citations (2). Many of its entries explicitly lack citations, many of the apparent citations are notes, and many actual citations are just to statoids.com. Some entries are questionable (eg. French DOMs, Jakarta), or to meet only part of the leads inclusion criteria (eg. Spanish regions can not all, by definition, "in relation to the majority of other sub-national territories in the same country, enjoy a special status including some legislative powers"). CMD (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nom --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I agree with all the nom's reasons, doesn't meet current Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist See CMDs reasons. — Lirim | Talk 00:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delisting. --PresN 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.