Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/December 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: Open 21 days, significant problems not addressed. Delist -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list lacks sources. Something needs fixing, either the list itself or the source requirement (item 1c) as it pertains to topic lists. The Transhumanist 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It does cite the Mathematics Subject Classification. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting the lead: "This list has some items that would not fit in such a classification, such as list of exponential topics and list of factorial and binomial topics, which may surprise the reader with the diversity of their coverage." Also, the list doesn't specify which ones are in the cited source (Mathematics Subject Classification), and which ones are not. The Transhumanist (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those not included need citations of their own, unless it is deemed unnecessary for this type of list. For example, since this is a list of mathematics topics, and the mathematics nature of each topic is covered in its article, should the principle of "pass-through" apply? That is, since sources are supposed to be presented in articles already, why would they need to be included on topic lists when all you would need to do is click on a link to check the source in the article? Is this redundancy in Wikipedia's citation requirement (WP:VER) needed? This is the only featured "topics" list on Wikipedia, and may set a precedent for topic lists to follow, so I'm very interested. The Transhumanist (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement in WP:V that references have to be explicitly given, only that material is verifiable in theory. It's clear that the relationship of these topics to math is verifiable in theory, which meets WP:V. Is there an item on the list you think it not related to mathematics? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list fails to meet featured list criterion 1c. Should an exception be made for this list? The Transhumanist (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe it's an exception; it's the common-sense application of WP:V to a list of this sort. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are the common sense reasons? And what about featured list criterion 1c? How should that be interpretted with respect to lists of this sort? The Transhumanist (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Transhumanist" neglected to link to this: Wikipedia:Featured list criteria (I presume this is what he meant by "FLC".). Michael Hardy (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. It's fixed now. The Transhumanist (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per The Transhumanist's reasoning. Criterion 1c says that "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations", whereas this article doesn't. This article would not pass FLC due to this, and mathematics articles are not subject to special treatment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per above. It's just an outdated FL.--Crzycheetah 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom and above comments. Rai-me 04:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - per nomination, and as said, above comments. Rt. 11:18, 31 December 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: Open 45 days, no change in last month, significant problems not addressed. Delist Woody (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list, when given a minimal comparison with our two other comparable featured or formerly so lists (Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy), has several issues:

• Wildly different formatting between sections prevents the list fromhaving any sort of uniting aspect.
• Lots of information that should have been somewhere else:
  • The whole "Anime distribution" section has nothing to do here
  • The entire "anime" section should be properly a separate list of episodes with summary here.
  • Unnecessary details about in "DVD releases" and "Video games" (why doN,t these have theirown article anyway)
• Poor formatting and formulation choices across the board (what is going on under "Other anime"? Who started the paragraphs with a parenthesis???)
• Short summaries to bind novel and manga versions to their episode equivalents should be present.
• Throwing the "audio" section all the way down and to group stuff from different source material (series and game) under it is a very poor layouting choice that put a very big separation between audio and visual material from the anime.

Circeus 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will take a look at the article's formatting over the weekend... I have an idea that may greatly improve the layout and content issues (I have halfway drafted this article in the intended layout (Except for the Manga Volumes section)). G.A.S 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of the format change is likely because {{Japanese episode list}} had some slight formatting changes after this list was featured. I'll also see what I can do to help if I find time. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortof FLRC commentary

• Anybody watching this? The list has not seen edits in over a month. Move to close this unless anyone has any objections. Woody (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would definitely agree. I'd close it myself,but that would be a sort of COI. Circeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]