Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2007

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 4 Support 1 Oppose. The opposition has been explained thoroughly. No activity since the explanation was given. Four days past deadline.

Result: No longer a featured list. --Crzycheetah 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for de-listing. Violates WP:WIAFL 1(c). The lead for this article contains unsourced factual information and description of the series that does not summarize source information contained elsewhere in the article, and is therefore not properly sourced. Geraldk 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-list Comparing with the Desperate Housewifes FL, The Batman is missing the episode summaries; therefore, it is possibly failing 1(b), too. (not as comprehensive as other FLs) --Crzycheetah 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per lack of much needed episode summaries. Circeus 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose delisting I agree, 1c must be satisfied, but it seems all the sources are there in the bottom, this page just chooses to not use the citation template format. Click the sources at the bottom Lucifer, they give all the information that is the lead. This seems to be a personal formatting issue. But Cryzycheetah's, and CIrceus's idea that an FL has to have episode summaries is incorrect. This is an encyclopedia, and plots are only used to provide context to the OOU information. We may allow them in a brief format for these pages, but in all intents-and-purposes, there is nothing here for them to add context to. Since this particular series has episode pages, the plots are already there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smallville list had links to the seasons at least, where one could find summaries, I don't see such here. The level of FLs is getting higher and this list is staying behind.--Crzycheetah 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smallville and Simpsons have their summary in season pages. As does Bleach (which is why we have a single arc as a FL right now.) Circeus 21:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list has the summaries on the individual pages. Just click the episode and you'll get a summary. Wiki isn't a list of plot summaries.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the link you provided, I saw that "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". So, where are the brief plot summaries here?--Crzycheetah 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, one where the plot summary provides context for the larger topic. A list is not a "larger topic". Larger topic doesn't mean "how long you can make your list". It's talking about production information, reception information. Something that covers more than the basic "he wrote it, he directed it" stuff. Pilot (Smallville) is a larger topic than the LOE page for those series. The LOE page does even compare actual article size wise to this one article. If you removed all the coding from the LOE page, that article would probably be something like 5-10kb long, whereas the pilot article is much larger because it contains a broader amount of information. It isn't limited to just writers and directors. There's nothing on an LOE page that needs contextual information for a plot summary to be able to understand it better. Knowing the events of a plot might help you understand better what they did in production, or why it was nominated for an award (depending on the category of the award), but a plot summary doesn't help you understand a name. You could have the largest plot in the world, but that isn't going to get you understand anything about it in the real world. There's confusion over the terminology because "larger topic" is used in other places for a different meaning. Like in notability, you would merge a small article into a larger article. The topic could be larger, or the topic could be more specific. It's all about context. Plots have no relevance without context, because Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching a television show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that logic, all plot summaries from the film articles have to be removed because there is no context there either and they are used as a substitute for watching those films.--Crzycheetah 23:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the film article doesn't have any real world content, then you're right. It isn't that we must remove a synopsis from a FL, or an episode article, or a film article, it's that they are tolerated in instances where they really are not necessary. You are trying to delist a LOE page because it doesn't provide you with something that isn't necessary since there is nothing on the page that needs contextual information. Plot summaries are allowed, not mandated, in the case of LOE pages, so long as they are very brief. If an LOE chooses not to have them, and does not have any episode pages, then there is still no problem. I'm not sure where it says on Wikipedia that we have to have plots for television shows. The plot situation is not an issue. It has nothing to do with comprehensiveness, because this is a list of episodes, and not a list of plot summaries, or an article about an overview for a season. If someone wants to create those things, they are more than welcome so long as they comply with the style and notability guidelines and all the relevant policies. But, if someone does not, any article that doesn't link to such a thing is not hindered by that either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand and I mostly agree with you. What makes me uncomfortable here is that some LOEs take one additional step than what is required to get their stars while some just meet the minimum requirement and still get their stars. Which list is better, the one with the brief summaries or the one without? The recently passed FLs set the bar higher and higher and others have to follow it.--Crzycheetah 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but their step doesn't mean anything extra. No two articles are alike. The FL criteria are not "LOE's must have plots", but they certainly are not "FL's better not have plots". If they do, great, if they don't, great. Having a synopsis does not make it better, or set a bar higher. It depends on your perspective. Mine, if you see my contributions and discussions for fictional articles, is one that is firmly against excessive use of in-universe information. If it does not need to be there, then it should go. LOEs used to have images, and so did their FL counterparts. That has since been removed. Having synopses in LOEs is a compromise, because many editors feel that we have to have a plot for everthing and it has to be detailed. Well, if you don't have anything that needs context, then the plot becomes irrelevant. But it's allowed for FLs as a compromise. It's an aesthetic, it's eye candy, like the images that were onces there before. It holds no encyclopedic value. Regardless, as far as this FL is concerned, the plots are definitely not a problem since it has an article for every episode already linked. The only real concern is the one Lucifer brought up, and it isn't even a real sourcing issue. The article is sourced, it's just not footnoted. Lucifer wants footnotes, while the contributing editors decided to just provide all the sources as an external link at the bottom of the page. Anyway and easily change the format and put them in citation templates. So, it's a formatting issue, not a verifiability problem. So, no reason why it should be delisted, but maybe someone should bring this up on the talk page of the list and inform those editors that it will be best for the article to have all sources footnoted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why do lists have directors, writers, or airdates? People can just click on episodes and read. It's not an excessive use of in-universe information to have brief summaries. Brief summaries enhance lists. You just need to have something extra to better the quality of lists. The Batman list is the only FL that doesn't have brief summaries in any way. Smallville and Simpsons have their summaries in the season articles, but Batman doesn't have any season article whatsoever.
    In the WP:WIAFL under number two, it says that a FL "complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects." The most relevant WikiProject for this list is WP:LOE, correct me if I'm wrong. I just wanted to see whether WP:LOE had list guidelines and guess what, it says "simply follow the example of other Featured lists". I clicked on the very first one and it was List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes with brief summaries. It's safe to assume that having brief summaries is a standard set out by WP:LOE. Since Batman doesn't have any brief summaries, I admit I was wrong, it doesn't fail 1(b), it just fails #2.--Crzycheetah 08:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Clear consensus for de-listing

Result: No longer a featured list. Circeus 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous nomination

This has already reviewed, and no consensus was reached, allowing this list to remain an FL. However, it still does not meet FL criteria. Little improvement has been made. The list is still incomplete, as many of the buildings are unlinked due to lack of articles. The major problem, however, is referencing. The entire list, which names over 100 buildings, has two references. The list also does not meet WP:LEAD standards, its title is not bolded in the first sentence, and the intro needs cleanup (most of all, is in need of referencing). If this list had not already been through a failed nomination, I would think it would be a candidate for speedy removal. Raime 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Agrees that there are many severe issues with this that are not easily listed. Circeus 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - can we have a precise list of what is to be improved in this article for it to retain its status? THEPROMENADER 07:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here is my list. Circeus may be able to add more.
    • First, there are two references in a list that names over 100 buildings. As a proper list, it should probably have references for every building. All references should not be based off one list. Other sources are definitely needed.
    • Every building listed should have an article (no redlinks), or the list is incomplete.
    • The lead needs to have the title in bold. -  Done
    • The lead needs more referencing.
    • The lead should not have a list in it.  Done
    • All external links should be in English, or else need to have good reason why there are listed as external links. After all, this is the English wikipedia. Offline links should be removed.
    • All approved/proposed/under construction buildings defitinely need to have references, or else this could easily be considered original and unverified research.
    • Any tied buildings should use the "#=" format.
    • The list names 104 buildings, but is titled One hundred Tallest Buildings and Structures in the Paris Urban Area
    • Paris Urban Area should more defined than (Paris and neighbouring communes). A more detailed definition, such as exactly what towns and cities are being included, should be found in the introduction.
    • Not a requirement, but a template of all Paris skyscrapers would definitely add to the list.
    • The sentence The Authority managing La Défense, the EPAD, has launched several contests for new towers in a large scale operation of renovation of the business district. The tallest towers are expected to exceed 300 m. Other proposed projects are currently being talked about in other municipalities of the inner suburbs such as Issy-les-Moulineaux, Boulogne-Billancourt or Saint-Denis is out of place at the end of a list. Should be included in the intro of the list, used as a reference/note, in the introduction of the entire article or removed.
    • If possible, a Year (est.) should be added to the future buildings list.
    • Future buildings is an inappropriate name, as it is likely that not all buildings on the list will be constructed. Should be renamed Tallest Proposed, approved, or under construction, or something along those lines. Done
    • Many completed buildings are missing information in the Built section. This is easy enough to find, and needs to be filled in. All information for all complete buildings needs to filled in, unless it is not applicable.
    • Another one: References should use cite web format. "emporis.com" is not an adequate way to cite.
    • Another one: The lead needs to be condensed. It should not be over 3 paragraphs long.
  • Raime 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• De-list - largely because of missing construction dates and referencing problems.

in re: Raime:

• • I don't think two references, if they are two good references, should limit a list from being featured. There is nothing I can find in WP:WIAFL that defines an exact number of required references. Of more concern to me is the fact that the reference do not provide most of the information included in the table.
  • Are you suggesting that every entry should have an article, or that there should be no redlinks? Those are two very different things.
  • I agree that the list should be limited to 100 entries, and should therefore be cut off after Notre-Dame de Paris, which is the 100th entry.

Geraldk 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in re: Geraldk:

• • • For the reference comment, my comment was meant for this list, and this list alone. A list that names over 100 existing buildings and 12 future buildings, as well as detailed information about said buildings, would have a very hard being cited as verifiable with two references. For an article of this length, I would say that while not impossible, it is very unlikely that it could get by as a Featured list with only two references. List of counties in Rhode Island, a much shorter list which does not go into as much detail, could easily meet the reference requirements with only two. However, for this particular list, references would have to give detailed information about all content covered in the entries (i.e. floors, height, name, district, city, year of completion) for it to meet FL criteria. WP:WIAFL does not give any numerical requirement, but does say that claims must be supported with specific and verifibale evidence. For only two references to work for this particluar list, one would have to be a very detailed account of every building, explicitly stating most information used in the article. My intent was not to place a numerical count on needed references, but to point the list out as being undereferenced for its large size.
    • I was actually suggesting both. I'm sorry, they should have been listed more clearly as two separate bullets. There should be no redlinks, and all buildings should have articles (regardles sof whetere they are currently wikilinked or not) It is fine if buildings within the same complex direct to the same article, but the list is incomplete if there are redlinks (i.e. Tour Hertzienne TDF du Fort de Romainville) or buildings that are not in a complex and do not have articles (i.e. Tour Neptune). Sorry that I worded that poorly.

Raime 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This reference may help give this article some added credibility. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a start, but there are far more buildings on the actual list than this site. It appears that the site only lists buildings within the city limits of Paris. This is imcomplete because the article names buildings in the entire metro area (with most buildings appearing to be outside Paris city limits), and the article names structures as well, which this site leaves out. Raime 01:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, the complete list is contained (by commune) here. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it is great, but I think it would do better as an external link, as it does not give information about the buildings on that specific page, and requires further searching. For individual references, you can use the individual building entries on SkyscraperPage, such as this one. Raime 14:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• De-list There is no height limit. One hundred is just to many. Plus, there is a huge white space at the top of the list.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Clear consensus for de-listing

Result: No longer a featured list. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per lack of reliable sources attesting to these depictions. User submitted IMDB reviews should not be basis of inclusion to this list. Corpx 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question here: how would you prefer to verify that a film exists? The IMDB sourcing was considered adequate at FLC, so I'd prefer to re-source as an alternative to delisting if WP:RS standards really have altered. I don't think anyone's really challenging that these depictions really happened. A similar dilemma arose a while back with song lyrics. There certainly are many songs that have referenced her, and all entries were verified, but due to copyright concerns we can no longer link to those verifications. Durova^Charge! 00:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of IMDB is pretty controversial. A recent attempt at a guideline (Wikipedia:Citing IMDb) failed. WP:RSEX claims the (writing) credits are reliable. From the discussion on those pages, it sounds like IMDb should be a fairly reliable source if all you have to do is assert that such and such a film exists, with that title. Beyond that, I'm much less confident. It is always going to be difficult to source pop-culture. I appreciate the problem with song lyrics. The source doesn't have to be online. If someone has access to the album notes (a form of publication) that contain the lyrics, then they can cite those. If the lyrics haven't been published, and online sources are going by ear, well that's a different story.

Durova, if you want help reformatting the citations into the ref/footnote system, let me know and I'll lend a hand. I see the IMDB links have been removed. I'd have preferred to keep them for now. Poor sources are better than no sources. Colin°^Talk 14:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick glance and here's some problems I found.

• 2005 Top 10: The Forty-Niners Graphic novel One of the officers, named Joanna Dark, dresses in chainmail and uses holy powers. - WP:OR
• d'Arcmon Anime The seventh movie of the Digimon series features a protagonist who is a female angel and soldier. She uses a special sword attack called "La Pucelle." - again, WP:OR
• Shaman King Anime The leader of the group X-Laws, Iron Maiden Jeanne, is a French girl who receives a divine revelation while praying in church that she must purge an evil force or the world will be destroyed. - again, WP:OR
• Kamikaze Kaito Jeanne Manga and anime The reincarnation of Joan of Arc, the gymnastic champion Maron Kusakabe, is the main character. She uses her God-given powers and arsenal of push-pins to trap demons who hide in works of art. Arina Tanemura, writer (manga edition). - Where is this cited to?
• Jeanne Manga Three volume work set in the Hundred Years' War whose central character's life parallels that of Joan of Arc. - again WP:OR
• Blade Storm: Hundred Years War PS3 game, Xbox 360 game, planned to be a major character. - WP:CRYSTAL
• Jeanne d'Arc PSP game, Title character in a fantasy universe loosely based on the historical story. - WP:OR
• Age of Empires: The Age of Kings Nintendo DS game major playable character. - citation?
• La Pucelle: Tactics PlayStation game. The title is an allusion to Joan of Arc. - WP:OR
• Perfect Dark Nintendo 64 game. The central character is named Joanna Dark, a play on Jeanne d'Arc. - I think it'd be WP:OR construing it as a cultural depiction without a reference.
• World Heroes series NeoGeo fighting game. The character Janne D'Arc, a beautiful French swordwoman with pyrokinetic powers, is very much inspired by Joan of Arc. - Inspired by Joan = WP:OR unless cited.
• Wonderfalls Fox Television series theme inspired by Joan of Arc. - show article doesnt even mention Joan - WP:OR
• Clone High Joan of Arc's clone appeared in the traditionally animated show. - proof?
• Wishbone Animated series. Episode 11 is entitled Bone of Arc. The central premise of the series is a boy and his dog who daydream about traveling into history and literature to become heroes. - Where is the connection?
• Maude CBS sitcom. The theme song includes the line 'Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her/she was a sister who really cooked.' - Proof?

That was from starting at the end and stopping at the TV section. I dont think anything should have "featured" status when its lacking so many sources. To be honest, I dont think this should even be considered for "good list" (if that exists) in its current status. Corpx 04:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the column that contained IMDB sources for a few of these entries. I'm not saying those are adequate sources, but at least they are sources. That might shift some issues from WP:OR to WP:V. Colin°^Talk 05:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• De-list for reasons stated. I wodner if it's even possible to put together a comprehensive cultural depictions page that is truly lacking in OR. It seems almost that Wikipedia is the only place such lists are compiled. Though I'm not a pop culture guy, so that assumption may be off. Geraldk 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been past 2 weeks and no significant changes have been made to it. Corpx 07:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing OR. Simply de-featuring is missing the point. Whether featured or not, the OR has to go, though on closer examination, not all the points you raise are OR, and some could be sourced. Carcharoth 09:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Half the list is completely unsourced and I'd say 30% of the rest are sourced to IMDB, which per above comments is not a reliable source. The list will be pretty empty if I remove these. Corpx 18:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Half the list is completely unsourced? I'd say the ones that link to Wikipedia articles would be pretty easy to source - just go to the relevant Wikipedia article and yank a source from there. The ones sourced to IMDB can be upgraded to better sources or removed. By the way, I've only ever worked on articles at FAR. Do the featured lists similarly go through a review process before they are put up for removal? Or do lists go straight to the removal stage? I will take a closer look, regardless of the outcome here. But would urge that de-listing does not occur until the review and attempts at improving the list have taken place. Otherwise it wastes time going back to FL to see if it can be returned to featured status. I realise it has been, as you say, two weeks, but can you wait a few more days? Carcharoth 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• De-list The list doesn't follow WP:ECITE properly. All of those external jumps have to have a separate entry in the References section. --Crzycheetah 18:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is easily fixed. How much time do I (and others) have to fix this? Carcharoth 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's posible to fix this list in 5-7 days, then go ahead. As long as we see some progress during this nomination, it can stay. Usually, nominations get closed because of inactivity. I personally would be glad to keep this list featured. --Crzycheetah 07:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• De-list, unfortunately. Too much fails to satisfy WP:OR and WP:V. Colin°^Talk 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say 80% of the sourcing problems could easily be fixed. It is plain that the films exist, even if you worry about them being sourced to IMDB. I've been reading through this in detail, and only a few items strike me as WP:OR, some of which might be confirmed from other sources with a little bit of effort. Give me a timescale to work with, and then return at the end of that time period and see what you think then. Carcharoth 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• De-list, unfortunately. I just don't have time to address the sourcing problems now. Standards have changed since this list got featured. Durova^Charge! 23:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]