Knowledge (XXG)

< Knowledge (XXG):Featured list removal candidates‎ | log

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:00, 18 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Underneath-it-All, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because, it contains a lot of unsourced sections. For example, the chart positions. Lead is okay, but not good. Many other issues too. Information of leak in the lead?? Novice7 | Talk 07:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist - All Chart Positions seem to be unsourced. Afro (Talk) 14:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Everything now seems to be properly sourced. Afro (Talk) 12:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• 'Speedy Delist'Weak delist Keep-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Citations in appearances and music videos sections should be in the {{cite web| template, no lazy-dog refs. Then I will vote for "Keep".-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is not an WP:AFD vote to keep/delete the article. It's to decide whether to keep it listed at WP:Featured lists or not, based on whether it meets the WP:Featured list criteria. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I saw that issues with chart positions was raised 5 months ago, has anyone tried to revert the page to when it was promoted, and then adding in subsequent releases? Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed it just now. The nominator has been inactive for a few months now and there is no one else to fix the issues. I would have, but now that I've nominated it for removal, I guess I cannot. Novice7 | Talk 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. A nominator is more than welcome to fix the issues found. There's no obligation to do so, but if you think you can help, and keep the list featured, then go for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rambling Man. I've started fixing the article. Novice7 | Talk 08:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I also started working on the article when I saw the nomination, but only in my sandbox. I've merged the tables from the originally promoted version and the current version, found references for everything the albums, singles and certifications, and double-checked what was in use (the Canadian CRIA website is down at the moment for a redesign and album certs are unavailable so I've hidden those). I've also updated the tables so they are formatted in the new-and-improved way. I haven't really touched the Lede, because I don't know enough about the subject. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so Novice7 gave me the three references I was missing. Can someone please merge User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Ashlee with Ashlee Simpson discography. I can never get it right and always end up deleting histories :/ Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, though things done within these edits will need to be readded- your sandbox had a few problems, so reverting to the mainspace versiod worked better for now. Courcelles 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Courcelles. I see you had the same issue I tend to when restoring histories! Glad I'm not the only one! :P I think I covered everything in those edits.

The "Music vids" and "Other appearances" tables should be converted to the new style if anyone wants to spend five minutes on it, but I don't think it's a killer issue at the moment.

I left out the "Other charting songs" section which contained two songs -- one that charted only in the Pop 100 at 93 (reading the article, it appears to be a minor chart that didn't last long), and one song that somehow claims to have reached Number 101 in the Hot 100 chart. Go figure.

Finally, the Lede still needs some work. I agree with the nominator that "it's okay but not good". It is a bit weak in places but having said that, it's not much different from other Featured discog ledes with regards to style and substance. I'd take a stab at it but I know very little about Ashlee's career and after listening to a couple of songs, have come to the decision that I'm not really interested in finding out more! :p The refs could be removed since it's all in the tables, too. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(→) Lol Matthew. Yes, the lead needs expansion. I'll try to expand it bit by bit. Novice7 | Talk 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist 3 albums and 8 singles? These can be easily merged in the main article. WP:CFORK! Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't originally nominate this article at FLC, but I seem to have adopted it during this review process! Even with the work I've done to it, I have no objections to this being merged. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can all participants address Nergaal's concern that this list is a content fork? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree, the main page is large enough already, and it makes for a perfectly reasonable standalone list in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
• As I already said, I don't mind if it is merged. It's not like the work spent on it will be lost, but yeah, looking at Ashlee Simpson, that page will be pretty bloated if we do put it in there. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Rambling Man and Matthewedwards. The main article is big (needs a neat cleanup), and adding this may result in even bigger and, yeah, bloated. – Novice7 (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

*Keep The lead seems to be "blah blah" reached # on x chart, but most discographies seem to do that. I'll just comment on a couple of things: Empty cells should contain an em dash I agree that the Lede is a bit weak, but it does follow the style of most other discogs. I don't know enough about her or her career to do anything about it. I've added the em dashes to the empty table cells Websites (eg Allmusic, MTV) should not be italicised Formatted the MTV/Allmusic thing. Someone converted all the references to those infuriating cite templates which messed a few things up. Someone should check chart positions for verification. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I cleared the tables and reentered the chart positions earlier in the review process, but if anyone else wants to double-check me, they're more than welcome. Thanks for reviewing this! Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Lead is inconsistent with infobox (videos) Fixed You have "... platinum ..." in the lead but " x Platinum" in the table, can we be internally consistent on capitalisation? Same for gold. I don't know if they're proper names or not, which is why they're lowercase in the prose. They're capitalised in the tables because they're the first word. Someone more knowledgable will have to make the change I capitalized the "G" and "P". RIAA publishes it in uppercase, so I guess we should use uppercase too. Novice7

Keep reasonably happy now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments – Couple quick grammar nit-picks: a quotation mark is missing in after L.O.V.E., and the comma after "The follow up singles were not successful in the US" should probably be a period. Also, the all caps in the title of reference 14 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:31, 13 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Fox, Rafablu88, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because:

• there are too much chart columns (20!) out of 10 requried.
• bad linking: "remix" is linked, but the "album" should be also linked -> linking to "remix album"
• false use of parameters: <ref name="Observer">{{Cite news |author = McLean, Craig|title=21st-century boy|work=]|page=14|format=''The Observer Magazine''|date=2007-01-27}}</ref> - first, there is no url parameter, second the format is not the magazine, but the "format", for example PDF or video

You do not need a URL for cite news.  狐 FOX  16:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• again: <ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4217140.stm|title=Antony and Johnsons win Mercury |publisher=]|date=2005-09-17|accessdate=2009-07-25}}</ref> - actually it should be replaced with the "cite news" template, redirect to an another site
• one more ref after this: Why not just one ref?
• <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/music/2009/04/22/9210976.html|title=Bloc Party works hard|author=Sterdan, Darryl|work=]|date=2009-04-29|accessdate=2009-07-25}}</ref> - again, not cite web, but cite news
• Studio albums:
  • AUT links to Austria, just delink it
  • DEB links to Denmark, should be linked to "Tracklisten"
  • FIN links to Finland, should be linked to "Finland's Official List"
  • NOR, POR, SWE links to the countries, should be linked to "VG-lista", "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" and "Sverigetopplistan" in this order
• Singles section:
  • IRL links to "Irish Albums Chart" and not to "Irish Singles Chart"
  • SWE links to "Hitlistan", but redirected to "Sverigetopplistan"
• Compilations section:
  • Allmusic multiple linked, also it is not the publisher, it is the work. The publisher is "Rovi Corporation"
• External links:
  • Could have more links, for example "Allmusic"

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. I'm baffled, truly baffled, that you've not just done all of these (really really minor) edits yourself, rather than getting me all in a panic over it.  狐 FOX  15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) Keep - In my opinion you've listed all minor issues, or non-issues. The approach should be to fix them, or at least attempt discussion at the list talk page. It probably would have take less time to fix some of these than it took to file the nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nearly Keep all issiues, except number 3, were solved. Please find this url, thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep all issues were solved.

But the format is false. Why you name the newspaper as the format?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, easily fixed.  狐 FOX  16:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• As for the BBC/NME link combo, each supports a different part of the sentence. If you'd read that, you'd know.  狐 FOX  16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously, there's utterly nothing wrong with it.  狐 FOX  16:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - not strictly true that there's "utterly nothing wrong with it" but it's in no way in need of this process. But while it's here, I'll take a look, in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - I would say "utterly nothing wrong with it" is going a bit far, dead links are still noticeable, also the language icon templates are not needed as the templates should have a language parameter, also as far as I know regarding I'd be interested in knowing where BLF came from for Belgium. Afro (Talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This probably means Belgium (flanders region)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It differentiates it from Wallonia. If you see something else wrong with it, by all means, fix it.  狐 FOX  20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also took the liberty of fixing all the dead links.  狐 FOX  22:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The retrieval dates need to be altered if you have altered any of the references. Also I could be wrong but I'm sure there was some type of consensus reached regarding the use of the continental charts such as the European Hot 100. Afro (Talk) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

*What's a "primary label"? The label they're singed to..? You can't say "label" as a few releases are on V2, etc. EPs section is unreferenced. Fixed, had to use an Amazon link as there is literally nothing else (as least that I can see). Why you don't use allmusic? Here i found the EPs Thank you. I'm not a fan of allmusic, as it generally seems to be full of garbage.  狐 FOX  23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Also, their listing of Little Thoughts EP is not the Japanese version, but the reissue. So it has the wrong date, and therefore is useless.  狐 FOX  23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Also, it's difficult to see where non-charting singles (etc) are referenced (Tulips, She's hearing voices). Fixed. Remix section is unreferenced. Fixed. Mix of date formats in the references, contrary to WP:MOS. Fixed, I think. IMDB is not usually accepted as a reliable source. Fixed, I believe. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• The lead doesn't mention singles at all, and I think that Bloc Party are better known for a couple of their singles than albums (that's subjective) but singles should be mentioned in the intro.
  • ...Uh, it does?
    • I meant the number of singles, like the number of albums etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
• I started looking at Allmusic and found things like "Dimmakified" which isn't mentioned here.
  • Can you point me to those?
    • here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Will see.  狐 FOX  23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I've looked, and it seems there isn't a reliable source for the release date of Dimmakified so it's gonna be hard to include.
          • Unfortunately, if you use the allmusic link to reference some of this, then if other singles etc are in that link but not in this list, it runs the risk of this list being declared incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments After having the FLC for Interpol discography dropped for a number of reasons which seem to also be issues here, I thought I would point out the following:
  • The reliability of EveryHit.com - used for Top 40 UK Single and Album chart positions - is questioned. (See large discussion here, half way down page discussion about EveryHit, and other chart pulication websites). The easiest way to get round this is to source ChartsPlus, in the same manner as has been done in Refs 23 & 24.
  • I'm unsure why the "Compilations" section includes releases which have already been released in another form, although I'm sure this is a much bigger issue than just this discography. Please see here, under "Resolved comments from Drewcifer - In response to issues with "Compilations"". simplest option would be to include compilation releases which were the first releases of such songs, or songs which were not released in any other form.
  • None of the releases include formats, ie. CD, vinyl, download, etc. These can be found fairly easy through Allmusic or Amazon.
  • No need to link "Helicopter" twice in singles section.
• As is probably pretty clear from this, these points are all fairly easy to fix (I would have done it myself had I had more time), so it will be a Support after these are fixed.

AFCNorth2k10 04:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Just for clarity, do you mean "support" to keep it as a featured list? The Rambling Man (talk)
    • Whoops, sorry. Wrong wording. Keep after issues are fixed. -- AFCNorth2k10 08:52, 17 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 16:21, 27 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Tompw, Teemu08, Discographies WikiProject, Alternative music WikiProject

Nominated in 2007, lack of referencing to verify the information in many of the sections, also appears to have dead external links and lead issues. Afro (Talk) 05:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Weak lead.
• References in a mess (mixed date formats, incomplete formatting etc)
• Not in-line with WP:DISCOGS (which isn't particularly important to me, but to the discography people it probably should be.
• Would expect to see an infobox in the lead.
• Dead/suspect links.
• Last collaboration has no information or reference.
• EPs section unreferenced.
• B-sides section unreferenced.
• Many Miscellaneous entries unreferenced.
• Videography entirely unreferenced.
• Download listings seem a little unusual for DISCOGS.
• Several WP:MOS issues in the refs.

In serious need of work. Currently delist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist per above.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hang on I'll try to bring this up to snuff. Hopefully, 2–3 weeks will do. Can't make any promises though.—indopug (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, good news indopug. We will need to see evidence of it improving over the next fortnight, but your support in the process is very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Update Here's the work done so far. Will resume working on it shortly.—indopug (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Indopug, I see no further edits in the past fortnight, can you indicate where you are with the comments above? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry TRM, the amount of dedicated work required to bring this up to snuff is a little beyond me as of now.—indopug (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delist for now, stubby lead, iffy tables and underciting. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:29, 21 February 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:42, 25 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Aguerriero, WikiProject Guitarists

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails criteria 4 and 5a as the article does not have any tables in it. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist it fails 3a, too. This list is very likely incomplete; I don't think this list includes all telecast players, only notable. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - not so quick to jump on the delist bandwagon, sure, it's not tabulated, but neither are our timelines. So that's not an issue really. As for incompleteness, perhaps this is a {{dynamic list}} like all the other "List of .... people" we have. So, now I'm past that, some comments.

• Bad start "This is an alphabeticized list..." we don't do that any more.
• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:MOSBOLD.
• Inclusion criteria seems a little, well, POV, "they are players with long careers who have a history of faithful Telecaster use, or the particular guitar they used was unique or of historical importance, or their use of the Telecaster contributed significantly to the popularization of the instrument." - how do the references back this up?
• "psychedelic icon " not quite encyclopedic ready, needs references.
• Use of en-dash for year ranges is required by WP:MOS.
• Don't necessarily like the subdivision into surname ranges, an initially alphabetical list would be better (without subdivision).
• " Of equal notability, " quotes like this are nonsense. If they're not nonsense, they need a comprehensive reference.
• References need work on their formatting, predominantly mixes of date formats, references completely surrounded in parentheses...)

Now then, my advice:

• Look at List of brain tumor patients as a way of presenting a list of folks. I wouldn't unnecessarily break this list into "genres" or similar, but no reason why you can't make a single table of the contents.
• Look for floral language in this list "famously used", "his famous...", "a faithful Tele player", "
• Reduce the advertising for Fender (e.g. this link).

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: The list is "incomplete" because it is selective by design. A complete list of all musicians who have ever played Telecasters would be massively long, not very useful, and unencyclopedic. Instead, the list focuses on players whose Telecaster use is notable, not just notable players who happened to have used the guitar. Notability has been determined by the coverage such use has received in books and articles concerned with the history of the instrument. There is inevitably some exercise of judgment employed by editors in determining notability, but this determination is closely linked with the contents of reliable sources. Rambling Man asks how references back up whether those listed "are players with long careers who have a history of faithful Telecaster use, or the particular guitar they used was unique or of historical importance, or their use of the Telecaster contributed significantly to the popularization of the instrument." Well, the references back this up by making statements to that effect. For example, when Tony Bacon's Telecaster book quotes George Fullerton, who says that giving Jimmy Bryant a Tele was like "starting a prairie fire," and that " pretty soon couldn't make enough of those guitars," we can justifiably conclude from the source that Bryant's Telecaster use contributed significantly to the popularization of the instrument. No doubt, there is room for improvement of the list, and perhaps standards have been raised since this list was promoted, but let's not be hasty in delisting. The list is of much better quality than most other lists of its type, so it still serves as a good example for improving those, and it shouldn't be too hard to polish this list up, keeping the above advice in mind. Nick Graves (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment no changes since the nomination for delisting. I agree in part with Nick Graves' perspective but the technical issues I raised haven't been addressed at all in two weeks, so I'm afraid I'd have to advocate delisting this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant delist Dynamic lists are very welcome at FLC, and this certainly is one. Nonetheless, "they are players with long careers who have a history of faithful Telecaster use, or the particular guitar they used was unique or of historical importance, or their use of the Telecaster contributed significantly to the popularization of the instrument." is too vague I'm afraid. I accept that this will be a tough one to come up with, but will be very happy to give the list a proper review (either here, or in preparation for a future FLC if it's demoted), once that is sorted out. —WFC— 13:22, 24 February 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:31, 13 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Drewcifer3000, Discographies WikiProject, Alternative music WikiProject

The list was promoted in 2007 and is clearly showing its age, clear lead issues and lack of referencing instantly spring to mind when looking at the list, there are also a pair of dead links Ref 4 and 9, the list obviously hasn't been maintained with current standards. Afro (Talk) 16:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist - it's a borderline 3b anyway, lead would be inadequate, missing a bunch of references, a whole para on speculation dating back to 2007, badly formatted table, not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Very little is right about this article; under referenced, under detailed, and it's debatable if we even need the article at all. Courcelles 05:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist As above DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist ultimately fails; I wonder who voted for support in the FLC?!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist, needs a lot of work to reach current discog FL standards (most notably the chart positions, which don't seem to exist).  狐 FOX  15:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist too short to not be wp:CFORK. Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist Urrrrgh. Lacking quite a lot. A few dead ELs. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist - this article is depressing. Candyo32 - Happy New Year :) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Even the picture is depressing :/.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Lol, you're right. Novice7 | Talk 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment While this article may not meet current standards, remember that this article predates WP:DISCOG, so I'm not sure I understand all the hate. And positions such as "this article is depressing" are, frankly, ridiculous. My specific objections to points raised here:

• Lack of chart positions—to quote the nominator of the FLC, "Unlike the many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since Lightning Bolt are by and large an independent band that has never come close to any album/singles charts." You cannot include chart positions if the band never charted.
• "Not sure if this article needs to exist at all"—OK, this article is a little small, but where would all this information go? If I found all this information in the band's article under a discography section, I would have requested for this info to be split off into a separate article. Note that there are more than 30 items in this discography, which, come to think of it, isn't that small.
• Dead links, cleanup needed—valid points, but surely not enough to warrant delisting before any effort to rectify the same.—indopug (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist Just 10 references, of which 4 are dead or redirects. A section is completely unsourced. Novice7 | Talk 14:21, 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:31, 13 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Claudevsq, SaskatchewanSenator, WikiProject Boxing

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of a number of issues on the article's talk page. Initially there was some hostility towards my suggestions when I placed it "at risk" of demotion, but some work was done. However, that's now stagnated and the list is still showing its age (promoted August 2006). In general, the lead is inadequate, it could use images, the tables could be merged (per the top of my sandbox), referencing needs to be more direct, several terms (Super champion, for instance) go without explanation and still some deadlinks. Complete discussion is still on the article's talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delist most notably this list fails to explain why are there 5 distinct world champion titles for the same category. Ah, and the lead does not correspond to any standard, and is not engaging. Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delist – Since the last activity here, the lead has been expanded, and looks improved from the prior version. However, more work is still needed for this to meet standards, particularly in referencing. There are some formatting issues as well, but they are less important.
  • Anything not cited in the body should be referenced in the lead, such as the first fight sanctioned by the WBA and Pacquiao's number of championships.
  • The body could probably use a few more cites as well; the last bit of the WBC section stuck out at me.
  • About.com, used in reference 13, is not typically considered a reliable source.
  • Space needed after reference 12, and one that should be removed before ref 15.
  • "The Ring has its own version of lineal championship...". Needs "the" after "of", I believe.
  • Ref 11 should have the same PDF indications that a couple other references have.
  • Ref 12 should have the publisher in italics, since it's a printed publication.
  • This is atypical in that the table of contents is showing up in the top-right of the article, a place usually reserved for an infobox, photo, or both. Is there a particular reason that the contents don't appear after the lead, like in most articles?
  • I agree with the editor above when they wonder why five different sanctioning bodies were formed, particularly for the later ones when multiple world champions already existed in each weight class. Right now, you would think that money never played a role in any of this, which I'm sure is not the case. There must be an interesting story or two regarding the bodies' formation that could be included. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in your thoughts on the lead. Other than the citation issues you mentioned, do you think it meets featured list standards?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The content of the lead isn't bad, but I think more could be done with it. The ideas TRM are providing below are sound and would go a long way towards making the lead a true FL-caliber one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment - without wishing to sound repetitive but it would certainly be possible to merge the individual sections into a single table with a nav box to go straight to a particular section, e.g per my example. The TOC is terribly distracting and the prose in the lead needs work. Still mixed date formats in the references. I'll do another review in due course, but am most interested in the idea of merging the individual sections into a single table. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What about the prose in the lead do you think needs more work?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the lead is too bad, but it needs copyediting, and some claims are unreferenced (per Giants2008's concern). But as I keep saying, the numerous subsections make this a very inelegantly structured "list". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be easier for you to do the copy editing of the lead, rather than explain your concerns, but if you'd rather not edit it yourself could you explain what concerns you have with the prose in the lead?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well as you know, I'd like to restructure the whole list, including the lead, but I'm no expert. I'm glad to see some of the changes I suggested have already been made but there's a way to go. I think we need to merge the subsections for the various organisations and just briefly discuss them (along with links) and I strongly think the subsections for each category should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What would you like to see restructured in the lead?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, given the current excessive number of subsections to the list, you should be able to write three or four decent paragraphs to synopsise the concept of world champion, the various organisations, the multiple holders, the terminology and then merge the dozens of individual tables thereafter into a nice single list. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

1. By concept of world champion do you mean something like "To become a champion a boxer usually must defeat the current champion."?
2. You'd like to see the subsections on the 5 organisations eliminated and some of the material about those organisations incorporated into the lead?
3. What do you mean by multiple holders?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I mean you should discuss in brief the idea that there are multiple organisations, that single champions can hold multiple belts, reunification fights etc, you should discuss some of the more notable boxers, those who hold (or have held) multiple titles at once, you should look at reorganising the table into a single, navigable list, and all facts need verifiable references. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To be sure I understand you, your answers are:

1. No, and you mentioned some ideas on the concept of world champion.
2. Yes.
3. Those who hold multiple titles at once.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good start. Ordinarily you should spend this much effort reworking the article, not getting too forensic on what's expected. After all, this is just my opinion. I'm only one editor. Rework the lead, fix the terrible subsections for each class (like my sandbox) and then let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delist on references alone I'm afraid...
• What makes boxrec.com a reliable source? Especially when the site itself has the disclaimed "this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate"...

That is too big an issue to tackle here. I think there have been discussions on this, but I don't know if there was any consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that it can't be a reliable source if the site itself says the data may be incomplete and/or accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that the consensus that the discussion arrived at?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you tell me. But if you honestly believe a website that has a disclaimer saying "this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate" should be considered a WP:RS, I would be very surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• WBC champions (referenced entirely by this primary source, I think) does not show the date on which the title was awarded. Where is this information referenced?

It is on the WBC site. Click on "Ratings" to find it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• WBC Superwelterweight shows Floyd Mayweather as an interim champion but that's not shown here.

No, Mayweather is an emeritus champion. This list does not include emeritus champions. Darchinyan and Sosa (that you asked about below) are also emeritus champions.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say they're emeritus champions on that website? I couldn't see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In the "Ratings" area. Because it's a flash site I can't link to it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can't see Soto's single WBC "no contest" doesn't seem to be referenced by this website - where is it referenced?
• WBC site shows Vic Darchinyan as interim champion at superflyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?
• WBC site shows Edgar Sosa as interim champion at Light Flyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?
• WBC site shows Sithsanerchai's record as 34 wins 12 KOs, this list says 35 wins 13 KOs. Where is the difference accounted for?

Sithsanerchai won by knockout on Dec. 24, after the WBC site was last updated. His record is up to date on The Ring site.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to go looking to piece together one fact and another fact here and there to come up with verification for the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That is how the list is maintained. It does make it difficult, but some of the sources aren't updated very frequently.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, for specific records where multiple sources are needed, they should be explicitly referenced inline, not using a mixture of general references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How about a note indicating that boxers records are all supported by a single source (probably The Ring since I think it is a comprehensive, frequently updated reliable source) and inline citations for any exceptions to that?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, well you need to ensure that anyone without expert knowledge can verify the claims in the article. I haven't yet looked at the Ring website, but every record should be accounted for using easily accessible references and explanatory notes where there's a difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Where are the IBF champions' records sourced? The official website doesn't seem to show them, at least not on the page you linked.
• Where on the WBO link is Jesus Gelus mentioned as an interim champion?
• Where on the WBO link is Garcia explicitly mentioned as an interim champion?

The rankings page on the WBO site makes it more clear. I changed the link to that page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Where on the WBO link are the champions' records?

I'll stop here in case I'm missing something but these questions need to be answered, and probably by editing the article so the confusion doesn't affect other readers. Once I see answers to the above I'll check every other source in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• The list is way better, however:

• I don't think it is explained why are there multiple champions in a single category title

Yes, there does need to be something written about interim champions and the Super champion explanation needs to be improved.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• There should be some color coding for "super champions" and interms (with legend of course)--Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to an example of what you're thinking of for color coding? I find the underlining verges on being distracting.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For example the WBF and IBO for the heavyweight. That guy is particularly notable so I would make his entry a bit more outstanding. Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - there are many, many outstanding issues here. It's fine to make one or two edits a day to the article but I'm afraid the main contributors need to start addressing these comments comprehensively. The nomination for delisting has been active now for nearly a month, and time was allowed beforehand when the list was "at risk", the efforts to save the list are commendable but simply aren't coping with the list of issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

• Lead I think the lead is very close to featured list standard. Material may be added to it depending on how some of the following issues are resolved.

• Interim and Super Champion There needs to be something written about interim champions and the Super Champion explanation needs to be improved.

• Sanctioning bodies subsections Giants2008 wants to see these sections expanded with more about the organisation's formation, The Rambling Man wants to go the other direction and eliminate the subsections, moving some of the material to the lead. This should be discussed to build consensus on what should be done.

• Supporting citations It could use a few more. Knowledge (XXG)'s standard is that citations are required for quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Is there a different standard for featured lists?

• Problems with references Most of these issues have been fixed (broken links, date formats, missing publishers, accessdate, etc.) but there is still some work to be done, such as making it clear how the general references support the information in the tables.

A variety of other issues have been fixed: flags, format of records, footnote, etc.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

References are in a very bad way, which alone would be enough to delist the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several examples of specific issues with the references above which have seemingly been ignored entirely. Readers shouldn't have to add two or three general sources together to get the answer you expect them to. You say above "Knowledge (XXG)'s standard is that citations are required for quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Is there a different standard for featured lists?" - answer - "No". I challenged the win records of each of the boxers, I couldn't easily prove they were as you have them in the list without going searching through a number of different references, none of which are directly referred to from the main body of the list. Not good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And, out of interest, you wrote your "summary" just over two weeks ago. I didn't see anyone addressing these issues. The original nomination was (officially) six weeks back. You've had time to fix these issues since 7 December last year when I started this process. I guess this nomination for deletion is stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If you check the edit history you will see that there have been changes to address these issues in the last two weeks. What do you mean by stale?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no edits here on this nomination to help the community determine if anything specific has been addressed. Stale means "no edits for a while", e.g. two weeks. There are many comments in this nomination which haven't even been responded to, let alone addressed. Just go and look at all the comments I've made which have no responses. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant addressing the issues by fixing the list. I can update the progress on some of these issues: Interim and Super Champion material has been added, small improvements have been made to the lead, sanctioning bodies subsections and citations.

I reviewed The Rambling Man's comments and the only one I saw that has no response is support for the "no contest" on Soto's record. I think this is part of the bigger issue of how to indicate which source was used to support each boxer's record. I'll try to tackle that next with a note or something in the general references or current champions section. If someone could suggest an example where material in a list is supported by a small number of sources, that would be a helpful starting point.

If there are any other issues that haven't been responded to, let us know.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the referencing issue is by far the most important. How does a reader reference each of these claims (i.e. the boxers' records)? One of the problems that you have to solve is that you expect readers to combine certain references (but don't tell them which ones) in order to support the claims. This is not the way to use a bunch of general references, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It should be made clearer precisely how the general references support the information in the tables. I was going to work on that next.

I'm also waiting for evidence that BoxRec.com (which itself claims could be inaccurate and incomplete) is a WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked some talk archives and couldn't find much discussion on this issue. I started a new discussion at WikiProject Boxing.

I also found the following points which had no direct response:

• I can't see Soto's single WBC "no contest" doesn't seem to be referenced by this website - where is it referenced?

I addressed this in my previous post.

• WBC site shows Vic Darchinyan as interim champion at superflyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?

See above where I explained that Darchinyan and Sosa are emeritus champions.

• WBC site shows Edgar Sosa as interim champion at Light Flyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?

See immediately above.

• Where on the WBO link are the champions' records?

They aren't. This will be addressed as part of the bigger issue of how to indicate which source was used to support each boxer's record.

Are you addressing this? If I don't see some positive movement on this serious issue then I'll demote the page myself. This has been going on far too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All these points still seem to be confusing, outstanding and (perhaps) part of a to-do list which isn't actually being "done". It's all very well to list things that need to be addressed but you actually need to address them. Otherwise this list cannot be considered to be an example of Knowledge (XXG)'s finest work. Not by a long chalk. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I also note that you have studiously avoided discussing the idea of merging the tables so you don't have so many tiny subsections with ridiculously long section headings. That's a shame given the solution I've provided to you as an example. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a detailed discussion on this issue on the talk page . There was no consensus that your suggestion was an improvement. Like the rest of this process, it would probably be beneficial to have input from more editors.

No consensus as no-one commented. I suppose that's no consensus. Either way the current format is entirely undesirable for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You also didn't answer Giant's query on the TOC. Why aren't there any images in this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a good question about the TOC.

I did add some images, but it looks like they've been removed. I'll put them back.

Some specific issues with "The Ring" as a reference, just the first three I tried:

1. I tried to use the "Ring" link to find who was their Lightweight champion, I got nowhere with that.
2. I tried to use the "Ring" link to find the Featherweight champion. This list says "vacant", the ref says "Juan Manuel Lopez".
3. I tried to use the "Ring" link to find the Flyweight champion. The ref says doesn't indicate the date when Wonjongkam became champion for The Ring.

1. What is the problem?

   I couldn't use the reference to find the lightweight champion. Do I need to make it clearer than that? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   Now it does. How interesting. Perhaps the site is subject to instability. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

2. The Ring site says "vacant."

   The Ring doesn't say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   Now it does. How interesting. Perhaps the site is subject to instability. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

3. The Ring doesn't list the date they awarded the title in their rankings.

   So where do I get the dates? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   I can't find a list where the dates are collected in one place. I guess they'll need to be cited individually.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   I would agree with that approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll use indented replies above to avoid any confusion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Delist for the third time. This has become something akin to peer review and it's painfully slow. There's little (or no) interest from the boxing project, besides User:SaskatchewanSenator. There are absolute and clear issues with the references which, alone, are enough to demote the list. The structure is still questionable, and there's nothing to guarantee the links provided are reliable. We can't wait forever on responses from projects which seem to be poorly supported. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:31, 13 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Outback the koala, Pfainuk, Ladril, Alinor, Danlaycock, EmilJ, Chipmunkdavis, Golbez, HighFlyingFish, Gary King, IANVS, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject International relations.

The current version differs significantly from when it was promoted. I am nominating this list in order to identify areas requiring improvement. There are certain aspects in this article that require attention:

• The lead section is short, and does not adequately describe the topic.
• There is also the issue of a detailed "Excluded entries" section, which goes against the Manual of Style: "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list."
• There is a serious lack of reliable sources in the body. In addition, many citations are shown as simple urls, with no further details. There is no apparent citation style.
• There is a Notes section with one footnote in it, but there are more footnotes to be found in the References section. These need to be placed in the appropriate section.

More inconsistencies may be found at the automated peer reviewer. There have also recently been several proposals for additional information, which has affected the article's stability. This review may be helpful in determining whether or not the proposed information is useful. Nightw 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment About the "excluded entities" section - it doesn't "leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria" and it doesn't make "editors guessing what may be added to the list". The list inclusion criteria are clearly described further up in another section. Having "excluded entities" section has the opposite effect of what you claim - it clearly states that the list excludes such entities that editors may wrongly assume that should be included. Nobody can be confused that these entities are included since they are in a section named "excluded entities". Alinor (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The "Excluded entries" section doesn't go against the MOS imo, but it should be combined with the "Criteria for inclusion" section so that it is all in one place and is clear to readers in the first place.—Chris!_c/t 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• The list is in the wrong order. It should start with the "most recognized" states and end with the ones that are not recognized at all. Also, the further information column is not ideal. Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why change the order? This is a list of unrecognized countries, so it would make more sense to start with the least recognized countries.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur, this order makes the most sense to me also. Outback the koala (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "list of unrecognised countries". It's a list of states with limited recognition. Why not make it sortable so anyone can set up as they like, with the current setup as default? Ladril (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a list of UNrecognized countries, which should start with unrecognized countries. It is a states with LIMITED recognition, so it should start with those with limited recognition, and end with those without any recognition. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The current setup is fine in my opinion. Nightw 10:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Current arrangement is fine. The article contents don't have to exactly reflect the article title, and when dealing with states with limited recognition, those most notable would be those with little to no recognition, which is why they are placed first. Each section has a different level of recognition, and within those sections the countries are listed per order of recognition. The other option would be starting with those basically fully recognised (such as Armenia, which lack one recognition), ending with those with barely any recognition (Transnistria) and none at all (Somaliland), which in my opinion would be unhelpful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What's the status on this FLRC? What still needs to be addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There's still an issue with the citations, footnotes, and the divided issue of whether or where the Excluded entities should be included. I've struck the issue that has been dealt with. Nightw 13:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments not looking ideal for featured status right now because..

• A maintenance tag across the top of the lead needs addressing.
• Is the lead image accessible?
• Six paras in the lead seems a little too much per WP:LEAD for any article.
• The "Further information" column is very confusing with it's rowspans, some empty, some with red links...
• Table column widths should ideally be the same from section to section.
• Some poor links (e.g. 74 -> International recognition of Kosovo, Palestinian Liberation Organization -> Palestine Liberation Organization )
• "sovereign subject of international law " ref placement.
• When you abbreviate something, add it clearly, e.g. "Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a " should be "Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) is a "
• I see at least one tagged dead link, poorly formatted references, a mixture of date formats in the references (which should be avoided), some footnotes masquerading as references (e.g. ref 32).

Overall, currently, delist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 31 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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 18:00, 7 February 2011 .

---

Notified: Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Anime and Manga

I am nominating this for featured list removal for the same reason as stated for Season 1. Episode list is unreferenced, Information about the Japanese video releases is completely absent, and plot summaries are inadequate. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. Per nom. Goodraise 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist - As stated in the first season by me "The general reference is dead and it means the entire list of episodes are unreferenced". Afro (Talk) 14:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 15 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.