Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2010

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 02:55, 25 March 2010 [1].

---

List of Ipswich Town F.C. players

Notified: User:The Rambling Man, WP:FOOTBALL

I am nominating this for featured list removal because:

• None of the sources show any of the stats listed, which include games, goals, records etc.
  • Stats for players up to 2006 are from the first reference, the book. Stats for all the players are found in the Pride of Anglia link, the 3rd reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• There's no alt text for images.
  • Just one image. Now has alt text. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• per WP:COLOR, colouring alone is not enough.
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Captaincy needs emdashes
  • No, doesn't "need" it. It can have it though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheerio!

Sandman888 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice pointed review, and nice to see that our exacting requirements on player lists is being upheld so stringently by you. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're here...:

• Can we have a 2010-style opening sentence rather than "This is a list of notable footballers who have played for Ipswich Town from when the club turned professional in 1936 to the present"?
  • Amazingly, both the nominator and I have overlooked that nonsense! Starting to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• I would have expected to see dashes in empty captaincy cells, for completeness, but I'm not sure whether there's any particular guidance or rule about this; can anyone help? I'm not insisting on it in the absence of such backing, although I'd guess that most FLCs with blank cells tend to have dashes these days, so maybe it is now an expectation at FLs.
  • Yah. em-ed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• I would have expected statistics for each player to be sourced by reference to a particular page within a website, even if only a pay-per-view website, rather than by reference to the front page of a website where the last access date recorded is October 2007. I'm not so sure that having a general reference for all this information is quite the 2010 way, even though it was clearly the 2007 way.
  • Actually, I've just visited the site again, and there's a single page which is sourced from a database, which includes the professional appearance records of all 481 Ipswich players. There's a single URL that deals with it all, albeit a subscription one. And as I said, the book is a handy x-ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Are the stats still only right as at end of Aug 2009? I know this only affects a handful in the list who are current players, but even so, it might be nice to get it as up-to-date as possible while eyes are upon it.
  • No, checking the current players for updates now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Updated, four new international players and about five current players stats updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note 3 has one date in a different date format to all the others in the notes
  • Hopefully all dates same format now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Notes often end with a full stop even when not a complete sentence
  • Tried to fix these, but eenglish was neverr my stroung pointe. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bencherlite^Talk 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• While I'm here, links checked, dabs checked, additional images added (all with alt text). Marvellous. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Marvellous. Keep, all issues resolved as far as I'm concerned. Bencherlite^Talk 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and the fix on the old alt= bizniz. Typical of me to get it 90% correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - can't see any outstanding issues. Nom definitely has a whiff of pointiness about it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 "The lead could be expanded so that it doesn't just stand as a very bland list of factoids about the list itself, rather it discusses players on the list e.g. most appearances, most as a goalkeeper, most goals scored, most games captained etc." Couldn't resist copying this from someone's comment at the MUFC player list FLRC, sorry... I was waiting for that to appear!! Yeah, I'll work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Hopefully enough now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Couple comments, sorry. Perhaps you could reword it so it doesn't use the word "professional" 4 times in the first 2 lines. And "the team play in the Championship" reads as if that's a general fact, like teams playing in MLS where there's no relegation, rather than just this season. Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Removed a couple of mentions of the P word and added an "As of 2010" to aid the reader in understanding that league location is transient. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Also, I might put the 2nd para of the lead into the top of the list section, and specify where the apps/goals are sourced from; the reader shouldn't have to guess which source(s) to look in See comment below. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) What's the source for the captains? and for the international caps? The same as the rest of the list. But I agree it's not clear so I'll work on that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Note added as to where particular stats are from. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Is Soccerbase no good for the post-2006 players? in preference to a subscription site. If this list were going to FLC for the first time, a brave person might ask what makes Pride of Anglia a reliable source. Or even an accurate one, seeing as you prefer the book source for the pre-2006 players, and there are a fair few discrepancies between PoA's totals and the ones in this list. And in the days before it went subscription, the stats weren't updated after every match: presumably they are now? The stats are updated on PoA within a few hours of the end of each match (depending on where Ipswich are playing and how long it takes the webmaster to get home!) PoA has been used by the BBC in a special article about the 78 cup final. But I guess Soccerbase could be used. Although buying the book to confirm the pre-2006 stats is the same as buying the subscription to confirm the post-2006 stats in my mind... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) If the BBC use it, who are we mere mortals to argue... I mentioned the discrepancies because you refer above to the summary page showing the stats for 481 pro players. I looked at an archive version of that page, dated December 2007, with a view to suggesting you add it to the references as an accessible verification for most of the players, but the figures on there are different from the ones on this list. Of the top ten appearance-makers, only three have the same stats on that page as on your list. You say at the top of this page that you're using the book as your main stats source, presumably (?) because it was more accurate for historical data. And I'm well aware that Soccerbase isn't necessarily accurate: I've told them more than once that the 1988 UEFA Cup final wasn't played 12-a-side and the teams didn't include future Brentford players who would have been in primary school at the time, but it doesn't seem to bother them. But that's by the by. What I'm asking is, you think PoA acceptably accurate for recent players, given that you thought it wasn't for players of the past? Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Apparently that final was actually 12 vs 11, no wonder Espanyol won ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Hmmm... I never could count :-) Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Fair question. I think, given that recent data is available much more readily available than data from the 80s back, the suggestion to use Soccerbase is reasonable, despite the occasional error. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I've now referenced each post-2006 player with Soccerbase (bar Lambe who's an odd case of being an international but who hasn't played for the club) and checked the pre-2006 tie up with the Hayes book (which they do). Phew. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC) The notes need referencing Right you are. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) All "notes" (most of which were just classed as refs) now separated and referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) I'd better start tidying up the BCFC lists; daresay it'll be my turn soon... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Indeed, there seems to be a bit of a backlash from some corners... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC) One more thing. Does the key have to be in such tiny writing? An old template (legend) was used, I've changed it to a regular-sized table. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Personally, I'd be happier if the sole criterion for inclusion in these player lists was the objective one of having played xxx games for the club, where xxx is set at an arbitrary round number to make the list a manageable size. No extras, captains, internationals, holders of editor's choice of club records. But I'm not about to hijack one apparently pointy nom just to impose another... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I guess to each his own. I think as long as inclusion criteria are clearly stated, there's no big issue with it. Thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'd probably still like to see a bit more about the players in the lead, but I don't really know what's expected prose-wise from an FL these days. Thanks for dealing with my other concerns so promptly and graciously. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm grateful for your detailed and exacting comments Struway. I've expanded a touch but if there's anything more specific you'd like that you think is missing right now, feel free to suggest it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - every 5,000 bit of improvement has helped. Sandman888 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what that means but yeah, it's improved, especially thanks to those reviewers who have participated. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – Don't see how the original issues justified an FLRC by themselves, but that's only one editor's opinion. It's good to see that the process has resulted in updates that have brought the older aspects of this list up to modern standards, and I see no issues that are worth commenting on. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (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 03:15, 21 March 2010 [2].

---

List of One Day International cricket records

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket, User:Moondyne, User:Mikker

While unquestionably an impressive collection of stats, this four year old FL shows its age in a few ways. It has a two line lead, and nothing in the way of explanation of what the statistics mean. There is also potential for adding overall team records and appropriate illustrations, and for sorting. Its big brother received a makeover a few months ago, and provides a very good framework for this list to learn from. WFCforLife (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Issues
  • Some names in tables are boldface. I don't see any reason for them to be in bold.
  • The sources for the tables should be in the footnotes section.
  • Why is there a "v" in the opposition column of the Partnership records section? I believe it's redundant.
  • All five tables in the Team scoring records section have the same columns and they all should have the same length.
  • Is howstat.com a reliable source? It states that The information incorporated in this web site is believed to be correct, and any opinions or conclusions are believed to be reasonably held or made, as at the time of posting, but their accuracy is not warranted.
  • Cricmania.com isn't working for me.
  • The link for the source for Largest tied run chases isn't working either.

--Cheetah (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Remove – Lead is inadequate, no inlines are present anywhere, and there are many other things noted above that are troublesome. In addition, I couldn't help but be put off by the first sentence: "This is a list of One-Day International cricket records, that record team and individual performances in One Day International cricket." A formulaic opening that we've been trying to prevent in recent FLs, inconsistent hyphen usage in One Day, and a grammar error with "record", which should be plural. The second sentence begins, "Like the Test cricket and its records", which contains another grammar error. This list needs much all-around work to retain its status. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (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 05:46, 6 March 2010 [3].

---

The Prodigy discography

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's content is outdated. As allready mentioned on the talk page several months ago, the list wasn't proper updated since the release of the new albums&singles. For example: The number of EP is quite unsure, the infobox mentions 2, this article 3 and the template 5. I mentioned this on the talk page of the original promoting user, without any response. I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this issue, but i believe that an article which content is outdated, and without any efforts seeming to start to get this fixed, should be removed as FL. Narayan (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've realigned the lead with the infobox in terms of numbers of albums, singles, EPs etc. I've checked per MOS, added alt text, anything more specific? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've been a little busy in the real world lately. I did my best to fix the EP thing, but the problem is there's alot of different opinions on the EP thing. So, I decided to go with whatever the official website said, with a few caveats. The website seems aimed at a British audience, and so it focuses mainly on UK releases. There's a been a few US-only releases, so I've added those wherever appropriate. As far as the template at the bottom of the page goes, I honestly think that's a whole nother can of worms, and so if it is incorrect that's something to bring up with the template itself, not this page. Drewcifer (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, looking at our article on the "odd" EP (Hotride), there are precisely zero refs, so as Drewcifer was suggesting, the template's issue is probably nothing to do with this page nor this FLRC. I'll happily remove it from the template, if this becomes a major issue, otherwise, what else seems to be a problem with this list please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it's ok now. Hotride may indeed be hard to check, but what about "lost beats"? However, there's also no mayor source that confirms that as an EP, so maybe keep it like this. The official website as a general source is ok to me, so i have no more issues with this list.--Narayan (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work by everyone. There are several dead links that need to be fixed, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs fixed, still some table format issues... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Table format issues fixed, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We need a line between the two "Silver" awards... any ideas?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do a full review, just passed by to check for objectionable sources. Found this one. By the way, the references could use some cleaning-up. Goodraise 18:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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