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: Clear consensus for de-listing
Result: No longer a featured list. Circeus 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
- Delist Agrees that there are many severe issues with this that are not easily listed. Circeus 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Here is my list. Circeus may be able to add more.
- 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.
- 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.
This reference may help give this article some added credibility. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
My bad, the complete list is contained (by commune) here. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delist per 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
