Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 2011

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 Dabomb87 20:40, 30 January 2011 [1].

---

List of NCAA Philippines basketball champions

Notified: Howard the Duck, WikiProject Basketball, Tambayan Philippines, WikiProject Southeast Asia

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because, promoted in early-2006, this is now looking a little worse for wear. Some basic problems: Bold links in the lead and "This is a list..." starts the whole thing off poorly. Lead could use some discussion over the actual content of the list as well current discourse about the framework of the competition. Some bits I can't understand e.g. "earns a twice to beat advantage". Denoting stuff in bold alone contravenes MOSBOLD. I'm not sure but I'm pretty convinced there are MOSFLAG issues here as well with each school colour icon being unclear to those who don't know what they're looking at. Ref placement (e.g. after punctuation, no spaces etc) needs addressing. WP:DASH problems too, spaced hyphens used instead of en-dashes. No explanations for some things (e.g. why the 36/37 juniors competition was suspended, why the 37/38 host school was "none", ditto in 81/82....) Paras preceding tables need work to make sure they read like professional prose. Last Srs and Last Jrs columns don't sort correctly. Streaks table needs en-dashes for year ranges. "Highlighted" streak needs a symbol as well as colour for WP:ACCESS. Not good on links... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey can this be extended? I'm fixing up more important articles but I made a general clean-up already. The paras preceding the tables are the next to be fixed up. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It sure can. Keep making changes, and if possible, note them here so we can see progress being made against outstanding issues. Good work, all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Don't want to review the list too heavily yet, seeing as more work has been promised, but there is one thing I want to bring up quickly. All the sections beginning with List of championships per school are showing up in small type, which is odd. Might want to check the formatting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand? Is this a problem in the article or somewhere else? BTW what needs to be done except for the dead links and the paragraphs at the start of each section? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work done so far, from my original list of issues. The dead links need fixing, and yes, the prose in front of each table needs some work, but otherwise I think it's nearly there. Per Giants, the text in the tables in the "List of championships per school" is smaller than it should be, also the tables contravene [[WP:MOSBOLD]. "Highlighted" streak needs a symbol as well as colour for WP:ACCESS. Once these are done, I'll happily re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes on the text inside the tables. The dead links aren't really dead, they've just changed addresses (I've changed it already but the well-intentioned bot brought those back. I'd deal with these once I finish the Philippine election articles maybe this weekend. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've hopefully done all of them now. I do have a problem on the footnoting in the table can someone help? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the footnotes didn't have a corresponding note in the table and fixed it here. Was that the problem, or was it something else? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd use a different footnoting thingy later. We'll if that'll work. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "for the seniors and juniors division from June to October of the academic year." Shouldn't "division" be "divisions" since there are two of them? Done, and capitalized and added an apostrophe to "Seniors" and "Juniors." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "in 1960 if a third team had a better cumulative record than either champions, that team will play the champion of the latter half of the season to face the champion of the first half for the league championship." Here, "will play" makes it sound like a current system, which I don't think is the intention. Try replacing it with "played". I see similar issues later with "if a team manages to win all of the elimination round games" and a few other items. If the system no longer exists, use past tense to describe it. Made it past tense. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "while their opponents has to win twice." "has" → "have". Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) In each table, decapitalize Year in Academic Year. Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) First contraction: Add "into" to "descended a full-blown riot". Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Note a: "when it was revealed when several schools fielded ineligible players." Change the second "when" to "that". Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The publishers in references 6 and 9 don't need to be linked. Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The photo captions could use a clean-up. I see some shaky writing like "It will then be followed with 2007 & again in 2008, once again enjoying a 3-PEAT Win" in a couple of them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) On this last one, that was added by an overly fantatical fanboy lol –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Few more things I saw. Fix these and I'm on the keep side of the fence: The general reference should be formatted like any other reference, not like something in an external link section. Remove the all caps from "BACKTRACK" in reference 5. The first See also link is used in the lead, and doesn't need repeating here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Y Done –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep – A lot of fine work has been done here to get this back up to FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Question: Does the footnoting still have issues? I'm looking for solutions on that if it won't be that big of an issue I can take it easy on that. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I have fixed the footnoting problem. I basically ripped off what was used in List of English football champions. This should probably be enough to prevent one of only two non-North American and non-European sports-related FL from being delisted. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep much, much improved. Good work Howard. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I cleared up a few minor inconsistencies but it should be alright to stay at FL now. Afro (Talk) 03:18, 24 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:35, 11 January 2011 [2].

---

List of Indianapolis Colts seasons

Notified: TheHoosierState89, Manningmbd, WikiProject National Football League, WikiProject Indianapolis Colts

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This list was promoted almost three years ago, and it has not aged terribly well. There are several areas in which it fails to meet modern criteria: The most glaring is the lack of references in the list. The lead is citation-free, and there are a few places where references are needed, like the team's background. Also, the links listed as references don't seem to verify any of the content in the table. Even if a Pro Football Reference team page link is added to cover the season records and playoff scores, the award winners will need citing as well, in addition to the notes. The lead begins with an old-fashioned "This is a list of", which isn't the most engaging writing possible. On a brief scan, I also see a hyphen that should be an en dash (99-29). Also, the notes at the end of the lead would likely work better as footnotes. Bolding is discouraged for text in tables; if the desire is to highlight something, italics are the way to do it without violating the MoS. All of the playoff scores should be using en dashes instead of hyphens. Per WP:ACCESS, colored items should be accompanied by a symbol. It sounds like a lot of work to do, but I think the list is saveable. I'm willing to pitch in and offer a helping hand if serious work is being done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I fixed the first sentence and removed bolding. Courcelles fixed dashes.—Chris!_c/t 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Added a couple general references that verify most of what is in the table. More citations are still needed, though. Oh, and "By winning Super Bowl XLI the Colts became the only dome team to win a Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium" is no longer accurate, since the Saints won earlier this year in Miami. Just noticed that after I added the refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments - good to see folks pitching in to help with this and hopefully my comments will do nothing but continue the improvement.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

*Would suggest an elegant rephrase of the 1953 thing so you say the franchise formed then, and don't explicitly mention "the list" as it currently does... Lead is wholeheartedly unreferenced. Most of this would be fine until I read things like "Colts owner Robert Irsay moved the team to Indianapolis." and "By winning Super Bowl XLI the Colts became the only dome team to win a Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium." which may be common knowledge to some in the US, but is completely mystifying to me. AFL is abbreviated before it's explained. Dungy is overlinked. "The Finish, Wins, Losses, and Ties columns list regular season results and exclude any postseason play"... Wins->Won Losses->Lost regular season (referred to as Regular Season) postseason (referred to as Post Season Play) Work on that consistency. What does a blank "Division" mean?

• Notes are unreferenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed several. The blank "Division" is already explained by one of the notes.—Chris!_c/t 00:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Symbols are in, and it looks like Chris took care of the overlinking and consistency issues. References remain the major stumbling point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Took me a while, but I was able to find references for all of the award winners. The lead and notes still need cites, but progress is being made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've now added cites to the lead in all places where I felt they were needed, and reworded a couple things in the process. The notes remain uncited, and they should probably be split from the citations at this point. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes are now cited, at least the ones that needed them. That takes care of all my original comments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep as a result of good work by Giants2008, well done dude. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, somebody not aware of the postseason rules will have a hard time understanding what "Wild Card Berth ¤ One-Game Playoff Berth" each mean, or what is their importance. I would suggest adding a note saying each of them what it means. Also, isn't it important if the team bets a bye for the wild card playoff game (like in 2009)? I would like to see this color-coded somehow. Nergaal (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'ved added the relevant link. Does that help any? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:15, 19 January 2011 [3].

---

Aesop Rock discography

Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject hip hop, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because:

• Music videos (only one ref after "Abandon All Hope", which links to youtube)
• Guest Appearances

are not sourced. Also

• Production credits
• Original contributions to compilations

shouldn't be included in discographies, in my opinion.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist - It's completely unsourced for the most part. Afro (Talk) 06:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist - lead's too short, whole swathes of information without direct references, not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist intro covers only the first section. Nergaal (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist sourcing issues and lead covers hardly any sections other than albums. Novice7 | Talk 14:26, 19 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:15, 19 January 2011 [4].

---

List of former municipalities of Norway

Notified: Punkmorten, WikiProject Norway

The FL criteria has evolved since 2006, while this article remains constant. There is nothing unencylopedic with the article, and it is referenced, but it cannot be said to any more represent our finest work. In particular,

• It starts with "this is a list of..."
• First paragraph is a single sentence
• The whole lead needs a copyedit (for instance misuse of hyphen, linking of committee).
• It is rather irritating that the number of ladested are not specified.
• The lead talks about 1 January 2008 as in the future
• The lead seems more like speculation than historical cover. Five years ago there was a lot of talk about municipal mergers, and some mention of this would be nice, I would like to see more detailed cover of the Schei Committee, which after all was responsible for most of the municipal mergers.
• Perhaps mention that in Norway, the entire country (minus outlaying territories) are divided into municipalities, as many countries operate with a system of unincorporated areas.
• Also, it would be nice with a short section on what a municipality is (a branch of government, main responsibilities etc)
• The Flakstad, Hole, Tolga and Os affairs is all unreferenced
• Table is unsortable
• A single table, with a county column, would be more appropriate
• We have an article called Namsos herred, but I cannot see it on the list. Either the article is wrong, or this list is wrong.
  • Sævik too, but I haven't found a reference for any of them. Geschichte (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• References lack accessdates
• Any possibilities of maps or images?

Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delist as it severely lacks citations. Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist' - As stated it lacks citations, also worth a note to anyone looking to work on this, I don't understand the heading "Fate" seems kind of odd. Afro (Talk) 00:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist I agree with pretty much everything Arsenikk has said, and no work has been done to save this since nomination (nearly two weeks have elapsed). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:15, 19 January 2011 [5].

---

Girls Aloud discography

Notified: Matthewedwards , WikiProject Discographies

I noticed the other day that the list had been vandalised by an IP who seems to specialise in changing chart positions in discographies to random numbers. I reverted the vandalism, but am still having trouble matching all of the indicated chart positions to the cited sources. The list has generally seen a lot of IP edits since it was promoted in January 2009 and needs checking through. JN466 09:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• As the original nominator of this page to WP:FLC, I approve of, and recommended, this nomination. Not necessarily for delist, but definitely for review. Other issues are:

• the WP:LEDE, which, for such basic subject matter, is too large at 4 paragraphs (I may be a guilty party in this; it was a bit big when it got promoted!)
• The Singles Collection is not a true compilation, just a box that holds the jewel cases of the singles and may not be suitable for inclusion
• I noticed two days ago that in June of this year, all the music videos, etc were deleted from this page and pasted into Girls Aloud videography. There are featured discographies that have more entries than this page or the videography page added together, and there is no reason for the split. There certainly wasn't any discussion. (And attribution per WP:SPLIT wasn't followed. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• While its here, someone from WP:DISCOG should probably reformat the tables to meet ACCESS guidelines.
• Ref 12 needs to state it's PDF format. The date needs reformatting to be consistent with the rest of the references, too.
• The page was promoted in January 2009. Any releases after that date and their references should be fact-checked.

Not a "delist" !vote, but not a fully committed "keep" either, yet. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not convinced that vandalism denotes a need to delist an article. Perhaps semi-protection, but no real need to delist.
• Shades of POV in the lead "coveted" (according to whom?).
• Is it "Christmas Number One" or "Christmas number-one"?
• " It is taken from Out of Control, their fifth studio album, ..." weird tense considering this was some time ago. Maybe "It was.."
• No explanation as to what an en-dash means in the chart tables (ie. the standard "didn't chart or wasn't released" thing)
• Don't mix date formats in the references.

By no means unsalvageable but work needs to be done to keep it in-line with current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Has any progress been made? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't look like it by the History. Afro (Talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist since no work has been done to save it yet. If I had time, I'd do it myself, but I'm sad to say I don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist I'm probably not going to have time to go over this before the time runs out. It would be easier for me to go through it all thoroughly without the pressure of a deadline. If anyone else wants to take it up though, feel free. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:39, 12 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 23:15, 19 January 2011 [6].

---

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

Notified: RandomCritic, Urhixidur, Serendipodous, Wikiproject Solar System, Wikiproject Physics, Wikiproject Astronomy

Promoted some time ago, this list is showing its age. I've asked a couple of the primary contributors to fix the issues listed on the talkpage, but little has been done since I notified them that the list was "at risk". So, formal process, here we are. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Typical WikiSilliness. The point of the article is to present information, not to meet some arbitrary standards of prettiness dreamt up by editors with far, far too much time on their hands. The list is being condemned, inter alia, for having blank cells (e.g., in the image column where no image is available) and for using bold letters in what is claimed to be a non-standard way! The whole thing is ridiculous. RandomCritic (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the list on the talkpage contains more than just a recommendation not to have blank cells, e.g. failure to comply with WP:MOS (one of the basic criteria for WP:WIAFL), dead links, WP:ACCESS issues etc. It's not a condemnation of anything, it's an opportunity to improve the article, thanks for your input to the process of trying to keep our featured material up to the highest standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And furthermore the author of this nomination hasn't even bothered to understand the content of the list he's critiquing. "WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well." But in fact the use of color is entirely redundant to the information provided in the cells: the Designation and Planet/Number Designation columns. You could monochrome the entire table and no essential information would be lost. I don't understand the purpose behind this entire rigmarole of a process -- for any real issues with the list -- e.g. broken links -- why not simply either fix the link, or make a note on the talk page asking to have the link fixed? Why does anybody think that this process is the first step to be taken? RandomCritic (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this subject so that's why it's here for improvements to be made. And yes, now you've added planet names to each of the rows without planet names in, colour has become redundant. Thanks for fixing the links. And as for this being the "first" step, you know 100% that it was not. I placed this "at risk" a week ago, (and notified you) and none of my comments (which I gave the following day) were addressed. This is the second step. And if the article is improved to meet our current criteria (including compliance with WP:MOS) then there should be no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The names I added are redundant; if you look at the Designation column you will see the letters "J", "S", "U", "N" indicating the planet to which the moon belongs. That information has always been there; I didn't just add it.

And no, putting something on an 'at risk' page which has no formal or official status isn't a "first step", it's not a step at all. You never linked to this page, so as far as I know it exists only in your mind. And you never produced a list of problems until I insisted on it; you put them first on my talk page, not on the Timeline talk page; and you never gave sufficient time for the editors to consider and discuss the problems (or, mostly, pseudo-problems) which you purported to identify. This entire procedure has been bass-ackwards from the beginning.RandomCritic (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can tell you feel indignant that someone would try to keep the standards of this featured list up to the current criteria. You were aware of the issues since 10 November. If you don't want to help, don't, but please stop filling this page with unhelpful rhetoric. I've tried to do this in a friendly, slow build-up way, but you just want to argue about it, rather than address the "pseudo-problems" (as you put it). If the problems are so trivial then I would imagine you could have fixed them in the time it's taken for you to explain what a foul-up I'm making of Wikipedia. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't linked to this discussion from the talk page. How do you expect editors of the article to respond when you aren't even letting them in on the discussion?RandomCritic (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Morning, just popping in before I fly. Actually, you're wrong again. The talk page of the article has a big notice right at the top, letting the world know about this discussion. Also, you and the two other major contributors were personally notified of this nomination. So, I think you need to re-think your point of view. And as for me not contributing anything of substance, well I suppose if you discount the 37 featured lists, 9 featured articles, 2 featured topics, 1 good article, 7 DYKs and 4 ITNs, yes, I suppose you're right. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist - just to be clear, this list's primary contibutors have had plenty of opportunities to fix these issues, but nothing has been done. Several other lists have gone through the experimental "at risk" process and improvements have been made accordingly. The advice here has been rather unfortunately vehemently rejected and treated like some kind of personal attack, when all it was trying to achieve was ongoing excellence in our featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Issues

Okay firstly get over yourself. There are some issues here and you were given adequate notice, crying about it helps no-one. The one thing you can hopefully change is standard of the list and, if so, there will be no problems in keeping this list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Massive WP:V issues.
  • Or "Metis" ref 63 doesn't mention March 4, 1979, its name, or the designation S/1979 J 3 or Synnott Voyager I, or designation XVI
  • Take "Puck", ref 75, same problems
  • I'm finding these throughout.
    • I have fixed all of these by adding about a hundred billion gajillion inline citations to the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature; this was previously an external link. Reyk _YO! 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• The majority of the "lead" is actually a key. I'd make a ==Key== section for that info. Also consider using {{Col-2}} templates to reduce the space the colour legend takes up
• That would leave your lead consisting of This timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their natural satellites charts the progress of the discovery of new bodies over history. Historically the naming of moons did not always match the times of their discovery. Just provide some introduction. Influence of technology on discoveries, using imaging instead of observations. Issues with the naming not matching. Reasons and references.
• I'd consider moving the one 1950s entry into the following section. As "Early" and "Late" 20th C. are not strictly defined it might as well be split down the middle.
  • Done. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• "References/Notes" is a suitable header in prehistory when they are written about but for alot "Herschel^[xy]" isn't a Ref or Note. I assume this is who (or what) discovered it but I shouldn't have to. Try and find a more suitable header.
  • Seems that someone has taken care of this. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• The "Planet/Number Designation" heading is also confusing. Especially later when there is also a "Designation" column as well.
  • Seems that someone has taken care of this. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• What does "(Jupiter)" or "(Saturn)" mean? Is it speculated it belongs to that planet, is it that is just hasn't been designated a roman numeral (if not, why). Inform the reader.
  • Removed Clarified the last offending one. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)edited Reyk _YO! 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• "January 16, 2007 (?)" – what is the ? about.
  • In the Key it is stated that it means the date is uncertain. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Later there are some empty "o: ". Why?
  • Appended a '?' to those two. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The state this is in is not what one would expect of an FL and without improvements I would recommend delisting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think these are very sound critiques.RandomCritic (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that those aren't "very sound critiques" is truly laughable. Do you think I spent half an hour making up problems to amuse me? More specifically, are you saying there aren't massive problems with the referencing. If so care to point out where the couple of unreferenced examples I pointed out are verfiable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

One entry into Rambo's Revenge's list, the insufficient reference, is enough to complain about. Your comment that it's not a "sound critique" is just... incomprehensible. It's not a sound complaint to point out insufficient referencing? Really? --Golbez (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the list is somewhat far from current standards, but could we NOT make contributing to wikipedia the opposite of fun? This lis more tricky that the 100th discography FL, so could reviewers care to have some understanding? Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware this isn't a "cookie-cutter" but I'm not going to let a sub-standard list through because it is unique. I have plenty experience working with unique lists so I don't really grasp why I'm being told to have "understanding". Furthermore, what would be the correct reaction to being told my review isn't sound. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - It fails WP:ACCESS at the very least, but also fails WP:LEAD. Many of the references also don't use the correct reference templates {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}. Although an easily fixable issue a lot of the references seem to be formatted weirdly (examples Ref 6, 160, 168). Also not a big issue, entries "Epimetheus", "Helene" and "Janus" look to be unnecessarily over referenced. I'm confused over the Prehistory formatting as well it appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the article to say the least. Afro (Talk) 13:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Addressing some of the issues :
  • I'd consider moving the one 1950s entry into the following section. As "Early" and "Late" 20th C. are not strictly defined it might as well be split down the middle.

"Early"/"Late" normally means first fifty years, last fifty years, so there is little doubt where the 1950s entry should go.

• • What does "(Jupiter)" or "(Saturn)" mean? Is it speculated it belongs to that planet, is it that is just hasn't been designated a roman numeral (if not, why). Inform the reader.

Fixed.

• • "January 16, 2007 (?)" – what is the ? about.

It means we're not sure. What else could it mean? I guess it could be expanded to "(uncertain)". A note has been added in the key.

• • Later there are some empty "o: ". Why?

Because we have not been able to find those dates. These empty entries are an appeal to contributors to fill them in. I guess they could be filled with "(uncertain)".

How does a non-expert understand what a blank "o" signifies? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • A lot of the references seem to be formatted weirdly (examples Ref 6, 160, 168).

I fail to see the alleged weirdness. Please explain.

Very odd (in my mind) to link to a known dead link (e.g. ref 6). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen a reference say "if an error occurs, go to this URL" or "freely available copy". Afro (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The former case is because the direct URL will not work, for reasons beyond me; the workaround is unavoidable until someone figures a direct URL that will work. The latter case occurs because recent IAUCs are accessible by subscription only, but since this is a sliding time window, they will eventually be freely accessible. Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you can't verify the information theres no point in keeping the dead link in the article. The point I'm making is not that the second requires a subscription, as far as I know these aren't discouraged, however I fail to understand the "freely available copy" part of the reference. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Entries "Epimetheus", "Helene" and "Janus" look to be unnecessarily over referenced.

Quite necessary: the references are all brief, and these objects took literally decades to get figured out. Urhixidur (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the references are referencing different elements of the row, then there are many over-referenced items here. The time taken to "figure out" these objects is irrelevant to how they should be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CITEKILL. Afro (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood. There is no single source that ties together the story of these discoveries: the series of brief telegrams referenced must be read in sequence to understand what went on. Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

References should be to Verify the information in the table not to tell the story of these planets. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read through a few of these communications, it seems to me that all the sources are necessary to verify all of the information for a given entry. Reyk _YO! 03:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You honestly sure about that, Reading over the sources for example "Himalia" it seems Ref 30 backs up some of the information given in the table (not all) while 33-37 seem to just verify this information while not giving any new information on the announcement of the first publication nor information regarding its name in the period of 1955–1975. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll give another explanation in hopes of moving along the FLRC. For "Leda", Ref 30 confirms Date of Discovery, Discoverer and Date of first Image. Ref 57 to 60 makes no mention of Date of first publication. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 22:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Some additional comments "found in Voyager photographs" link "Voyager" appropriately for non-experts. Fixed. Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced. Typo - millenium. Fixed. Other Designation in that table (a) should be Other designation and (b) according to whom? What qualifies for "other designation" in this case? I think you refer to those cases where the column shows "nth Planet" as well as IAU-approved permanent designations such as "Saturn VII". The former designation enjoys no "official status" but has nevertheless seen extended use. Permanent Designation ->Permanent designation, similar for Discoverer(s)/Notes - make it ../notes. Fixed as "...and notes". References 4 and 5 (and maybe others) are footnotes, not references, and should themselves have references. Fixed. Ref 91, MPEC links to a disambiguation page. Fixed. Ceres unreferenced. Fixed. Same for Haumea, Hi′iaka, Namaka... Fixed. Some entries have multiple names, e.g. Himalia, this should be explained in the key. See the expanded paragraph. Does it address this point satisfactorily? Don't superscript "th" or "st" or "rd" e.g. 9th per the WP:MOS. Actually, that's in Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Typography; WP:MOS only bans superscripts from centuries and millennia. Fixed. (I don't like that rule, for the record) Is the Douglas Currie you link really the one you mean to link to? Disambig page created. Same question for Aaron Evans. Disambig link created. Reitsema is overlinked in 1980s. Fixed. Cassini–Huygens should have an en-dash separating the words, not a hyphen. Fixed. Can you explain how, for instance, ref 169 is definitively the first time anything was published about S/2009 S 1? Is there definitive evidence somewhere that ciclops.org is the de facto origin of such publications? Bear in mind we are non-experts... IAUCs are definitive references, and this one just happens to have been mirrored on ciclops.org. Otherwise it'd be another one of those "subscription required" links. Avoid mixture of date formats in the references, e.g. Ref 1 has 2010-03-12 while ref 6 says 5 March 1656. Fixed. (Although I would think using a more compact format for "access dates" is better; enhances their different nature) Structure your sections per the manual of style (e.g. external links come after references). Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Urhixidur (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In a significant procedural violation, not this page but my talk page was linked to from the article under discussion. Accordingly the following material was placed on my talk page, from which I have removed them. It should be apparent that the fact that this discussion is ongoing is still only apparent to two or three editors (apparently randomly chosen) of the article.RandomCritic (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect again, as I said to you above, this page is linked to from the banner at the top of the talkpage of the article and has been done since the start of this FLRC. Please stop deliberately deceiving people. Gosh, this isn't easy is it? The people I personally notified were the top active editors in the article history, found here. Please don't fill this up with ongoing vitriol, just try to save the list, eh? And for what it's worth, you got exactly what you asked for. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The below is 6 revisions originally at RandomCritic's talk page which they C&P here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons

The above list has been identified at WP:FLC as being "at risk" of delisting. This basically means that it's still in a reasonably good shape, but that it needs updating in line with current featured list standards. I'm letting you know this as you are a major contributor to the list. If the list is not improved, then it will be nominated at WP:FLRC. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi RC, thanks for your note. Some pointers to help the list achieve current standards...

1. We no longer start with "This is a list..." or "This timeline..." - we now expect an article-standard introduction, so, in this case two or three paras of good prose to explain what were about to read, which adequately summarises the list.
2. References to online sources could use accessdate parameters.
3. WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well.
4. Inline links such as "Systema Saturnium ", " Kosmotheôros" etc should be avoided.
5. Bold is discouraged to indicate a particular property, per WP:MOSBOLD.
6. While the table footers aren't explicitly discouraged, they are highly unusual, and not really needed.
7. References/Notes -> what does "Herschel" mean to a non-expert? Perhaps "Discovered by Herschel" would be more obvious.
8. Consistency on linking is required. You don't relink Kuiper, for instance, but you do relink Kowal.
9. Blank cells are not great, for those without images, I'd suggest an en- or em-dash. Same for those blank cells for nameless moons.
10. What makes the first of the External links reliable?
11. The Hawaii.edu link is dead.
12. As is the aa.usno.navy.mil link.
13. Some refs are actually notes, e.g. [4] and [5]... and they need to be referenced.
14. What is IAUC? Is it linked/expanded anywhere?
15. Checklinks (here) says four links are dead.

This is a quick sample of some of the things that stood out. The "at-risk" category is new, so thanks for your feedback, I'll ensure future lists in this category receive more explicit detail on how to match up to current FL standards. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Just to let you know the list will be nominated at WP:FLRC on 15 November should these issues not be dealt with. This usually means you and other interested parties will have a fotnight to fix issues in the list before it's demoted. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Working comments:

1. We no longer start with "This is a list..." or "This timeline..." - we now expect an article-standard introduction, so, in this case two or three paras of good prose to explain what were about to read, which adequately summarises the list.

I expanded that a bit. I don't want the intro to get too long, particularly considering how much the Key section explains what is about to unfold.

Still starts incorrectly and isn't long enough to adequately summarise the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

2. References to online sources could use accessdate parameters.

Too late for most of those. Can't be helped.

Not at all. Just add the accesdate parameter to each use of {{Cite web}}. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

3. WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't just use colour to express a particular property, we need a symbol (or something which isn't colour-dependent) as well.

The colour-coded information is redundant with the cell data. For instance, all Jupiter moons are identified as such by their designation(s).

4. Inline links such as "Systema Saturnium ", " Kosmotheôros" etc should be avoided.

Fixed.

5. Bold is discouraged to indicate a particular property, per WP:MOSBOLD.

Well, they don't hurt.

If they contravene the manual of style, the list fails the criteria, so will need to be delisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

6. While the table footers aren't explicitly discouraged, they are highly unusual, and not really needed.

Not needed? I beg to differ. Some of the sections are so long the column titles scroll off the top of the screen; repeating them like has been done here helps the reader to keep his orientation.

7. References/Notes -> what does "Herschel" mean to a non-expert? Perhaps "Discovered by Herschel" would be more obvious.

That column now reads "Discovere(s)/Notes".

8. Consistency on linking is required. You don't relink Kuiper, for instance, but you do relink Kowal.

I think that's fixed now: within each section, only the first occurrence is linked.

9. Blank cells are not great, for those without images, I'd suggest an en- or em-dash. Same for those blank cells for nameless moons.

Fixed.

10. What makes the first of the External links reliable?

I don't know. They are just in alphabetical order.

No, I meant what makes them reliable? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

11. The Hawaii.edu link is dead.

No such link now.

12. As is the aa.usno.navy.mil link.

(Hilton) Not dead now.

13. Some refs are actually notes, e.g. [4] and [5]... and they need to be referenced.

True. This remains to be done.

14. What is IAUC? Is it linked/expanded anywhere?

IAUC, MPEC now linked.

15. Checklinks (here) says four links are dead.

All fixed now.

Urhixidur (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Can I get an update on what has been fixed and what still needs to be addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure as to what's been fixed but there are some problems regarding referencing I think most noticeable WP:CITEKILL, other problems include Access and Lead issues. Afro (Talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment on a quick revisit, I can see the following:

• WP:OR in the lead (. Possibly the most famous instance ....)
• Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced.
• WP:MOSBOLD is contravened in the tables.

And what would you suggest? Bold type is used to mark satellites; italic type is used to mark planets. Serendi^podous 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest compliance with the WP:MOS, in other words don't use bold to designate something. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• No explanation as to where or what "other designation" means.
• No explanation as to why "permanent designation" actually isn't permanent and has changed for many objects many times.
• No explanation as to what "temporary designation" means.
• Some odd entries (e.g. "S/1981 N 1= S/1989 N 2" and "Ortiz, Aceituno Castro, Santos-Sanz)[30][157] or (Brown, Trujillo, Rabinowitz)[158][159]" for instance - footnotes would greatly assist the non-expert here).
• Per Afro, CITEKILL is evident.

That's unfair. These aren't historical discussions; they're physical and orbital data on large floating balls. Other than simply reiterate the same information, I don't see what an alternate source would do. Serendi^podous 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

CITEKILL means you're using too many citations for a given fact, and that becomes confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part is unfair, CITEKILL is a clear issue with the article. Afro (Talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 editorial work

Addressing each point raised in December 2010:

• WP:OR in the lead (Possibly the most famous instance...)

Could you clarify what you mean? All I read in the intro are statements borrowed from other WP articles. That is to say, established facts. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying something like "Possibly the most famous instance" is original research. Unless you have a citation that says this, or says it is the most famous instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It'll make the text very dry to read indeed, if one can't throw light-weight affirmations like this into it. I've "neutralized" ("neutered"?) the "offending" sentence. (Sounds like Thomas Bowdler would be proud of WP:OR). Urhixidur (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad you understand! Bowdler wasn't trying to write a neutral POV encyclopedia, obviously!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Prehistory section is almost entirely unreferenced.

• WP:MOSBOLD is contravened in the tables.

And what would you suggest? Bold type is used to mark satellites; italic type is used to mark planets. Serendi^podous 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest compliance with the WP:MOS, in other words don't use bold to designate something. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, one is free to ignore bolding and italicizing (it is redundant), so does this nevertheless contravene MOSBOLD? Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, this is an WP:ACCESS issue. It's not about ignoring it, it's about making sure it's not the not the only thing that designates a property. And it should comply with WP:MOS per WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• No explanation as to where or what "other designation" means.
• No explanation as to why "permanent designation" actually isn't permanent and has changed for many objects many times.
• No explanation as to what "temporary designation" means.

All three types of designations are now explained or linked to explanations in the key. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Some odd entries (e.g. "S/1981 N 1= S/1989 N 2" and "(Ortiz, Aceituno Castro, Santos-Sanz)[30][157] or (Brown, Trujillo, Rabinowitz)[158][159]" for instance - footnotes would greatly assist the non-expert here).

For the former, they're just synonyms. See Larissa (moon) for details. I've removed the equal sign.

For the latter, read the Haumea article to understand. I've added an explicit (see the Controversy over the discovery of Haumea) to the box. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per Afro, CITEKILL is evident.

That's unfair. These aren't historical discussions; they're physical and orbital data on large floating balls. Other than simply reiterate the same information, I don't see what an alternate source would do. Serendi^podous 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

CITEKILL means you're using too many citations for a given fact, and that becomes confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part is unfair, CITEKILL is a clear issue with the article. Afro (Talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm very, very weary of REMOVING citations after all the effort that went into identifying them in the first place. I'll look into the cases when time allows, and mount a defence. Urhixidur (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well consider this FLRC has been running for quite some time, so it may be that if these are not all resolved very soon then the list will be demoted. Please note that this doesn't stop you from renominating it once all the issues are fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started working on the CITEKILL issue by merging blocks of citations (as suggested by the CITEKILL page). What strikes me, though, is that CITEKILL is not appropriate to this list: the long strings of citations all occur at the end of boxes listing the discoverers. They do not impede the flow of sentences, because they do not appear within sentences. This said, grouping citations leads to only a few remaining "problematic" boxes (of more than 3 citations): Janus (both appearances), Adrastea, Epimetheus, Helene, and the Kalyke through S/2000 J 11 series. Urhixidur (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Closing note This FLRC has lasted over two months, and although it was initially dragged down by procedural issues and off-topic commentary, a lot of good work has been done to improve the list. However, there are still significant concerns regarding the lead section, referencing and MOS issues that need to be resolved. In light of these problems and the overall consensus at this FLRC, I am going to delist this article from FL status. I encourage all editors who have participated in improving this list since it reached FLRC to continue, so that we might soon see the bronze star in the top-right corner again. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:35, 11 January 2011 [7].

---

109th United States Congress

Notified: Markles, WikiProject U.S. Congress

First, this is not exactly a list. While it has a list of Senators, a list of Representatives, a list of legislation, etc. within the article, it is not a "List of" anything as a whole. Therefore, even if other problems are fixed, this would be better off at GA or FA. Next, I feel that the article is lacking information. Surely a two-year period of American politics would have more major events, or the ones mentioned could be elaborated on. More than one hearing was held, and the article in general could be more informative. The main problem is sourcing. There are some references, but the article completely lacks links citing other facts, the party summary, leadership, members, and employees. I'm sure this article can be greatly improved, but I don't see it as a list. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree - It is a list of several items, and contains info and links necessary to access the articles on Senators, Representatives, Legislation etc. All these have their own articles, and in this one it should not be elaborated upon, exactly avoiding to create a monstrous catch-all. Kraxler (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care - "Featured" File or List is an ego-boosting process, as it was for me when I nominated this article. But now I don't need that kind of personal affirmation. At the time, by the way, I thought it was an "article." When I nominated it (like the 110th), it was as an article and I was told "No, it's a list." I said, "fine then nominate it as a list." I think it passed then. But frankly, if the article is Featured, GA, A or C, it's all the same to me. It doesn't matter to the article so you can delist it or not. It doesn't change anything if it's "Featured" or not. —Markles 01:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per nominator. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - There's a lack of citations. The lead doesn't adequately describe the article. The Major events section could be greatly expanded upon. I'm sure also that parts of the article could be formatted better. Afro (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delist a shame Markles etc think this is a badge-winning exercise. The mature outlook is to produce excellent lists, of which this is not one. It's not about recognition, it's about promoting Wikipedia. When editors start throwing toys and claiming this about anything other than ensuring excellent content, it's a great pity. This is not a featured list, Afro hits the major problems, if no-one is willing to help then that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, The Rambling Man. The "Featured" process does encourage editors to improve articles. Perhaps that justifies the "badge-winning" part of it, anyway. I was hasty and I apologize.—Markles 02:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• I still disagree to certain things mentioned above, although I have no opinion at all on the delist-question:
  • Lists should not need too amny citations, the sources and references are on the listed subjects' articles. Only controversial content should be footnoted.
    • Please see nearly every other FL. While I think citations can get excessive, this has nowhere near enough. That is not how Wikipedia works; FLs should be able to stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The Major events section could be greatly expanded upon??? What do you mean? Add descriptions, duplicating content that should be read elsewhere (on the event's article page), or add events, including minor events and minute events and minuscule events, and non-events?

• It could be more descriptive regarding the events which took place "Prominent events included the filibuster "nuclear option" scare", could be explained as to what this scare was for example, the whole section doesn't seem encyclopedic. Afro (Talk) 15:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If it's a list, then isn't it sufficient? You want it more descriptive, but is that really necessary for an article? I guess that brings me to the meta-question: Is it a list or an article?—Markles 15:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• No, Featured Lists do not just have name, name, name, name or event, event, event, event; they often include more detailed information about the subjects. And that brings me to why I nominated this: It's an article with numerous sublists. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest a layout more like the one shown on 111th United States Congress to keep it as a list. Afro (Talk) 18:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Please, Markles, do not apologize. You might have been hasty, perhaps even wrong, but no harm was done. Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The apology was welcome. There was no need at all to disparage the good faith efforts of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Why did you not oppose the nomination, back in 2007, Rambling Man? It was supported unopposed then. No, Markles, there is absolutely nothing to apologize for. And by the way, all the "Nth Congress" and connected lists/articles are still full of doubtful info, which I'm trying to improve. It will take years, and if anybody handed me a badge, unopposed, I would take it without hesitation, although I never nominated any of my articles for anything. I propose to delist now, and to archive this, finishing a fruitless and unhelpful debate. Kraxler (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument at all. Standards have changed dramatically since 2007, and I appreciated Markles' apology for disparaging this entire project. Once again, this is not about "badges" as you seem to be obsessed with, it's about preserving the highest possible standard for Wikipedia's featured content. Simple as that. The debate actually is helpful as it keeps our featured content excellent. And it would be more "fruitful" if people acted to improve the article rather than complaining about the system. Thanks for your contributions to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed with badges, as I said above. I do not think that Markles disparaged your precious project. He was given the badge a long time ago, and has now grown up sufficiently to state his opinion that the article will be the same with or without the star. Which is absolutely correct. Besides, "featured content" is certainly less than 1% of Wikipedia, I'm concerned about the other 99%, improving hundreds (who knows, thousands..) of articles over the years. IMO, that is what promotes Wikipedia: that users can look up anything, and get good and reliable info. Most users/readers don't even know what is a "featured article". And by the way, I'm not complaining about anything, I'm fine. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not "my precious project", it's Wikipedia's project to ensure excellence across lists. His apology was welcome. I'm glad you're concerned with the rest of the unfeatured part of Wikipedia, aren't we all? But in any case, this discourse is pointless, as it certainly isn't leading to improving the list, so I guess it's best we both disengage. Happy new year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist it is a list, but it is neither a very appealing, easy to read, nor well reverenced one. Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:35, 11 January 2011 [8].

---

List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is using an unreliable source to source its airdates. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Is this the only reason? Because this can be easily fixed by removing the reference. The first two states sourced to to ANN's encyclopedia aren't ones that are likely to be challenged and the third has an second reference. —Farix (t | c) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guess this is it. It needs a new source for its airdates. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Demote I see a lot of other problems with this list, beyond the use of ANN's Encyclopedia as a source. Information about the Japanese video releases is completely absent from the article. This information exists[9]; we just need to find the release dates. Second, many of the plot summaries are inadequate or simply incomplete. Plot summaries should describe the entire plot of the episode. You can't do that in one or two sentences. This alone is a reason to delist the list. Third, the list references itself in the lead sentence, this is contrary to Wikipedia's policies on self referencing. The lead also fails to properly identify the main subject and doesn't provided much coverage beyond North American, even though this is a Japanese anime television series. —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Demote - The general reference is dead and it means the entire list of episodes are unreferenced. Afro (Talk) 21:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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