Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 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 The Rambling Man 16:57, 8 November 2010 [1].

---

List of English words containing Q not followed by U

Notified: WikiProject Glossaries. Most prominent editors retired; also noted User:Dbachmann, who placed the {{primary sources}} tag and raised concerns about article quality on the talk page.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because...

• Tagged with {{Primary Sources}} since July.
• Several [citation needed]s throughout.
• Extremely inapprporiate citation style. The "sources" column uses a bunch of alphabet soup which is then decoded way at the bottom. Why not just use footnotes like a normal list?
• "Other forms", "etymology" and "meaning" are all unsourced.
• "Uses" section is unsourced.
• Link to disambiguation: Qaid.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am confused by this nomination. I am not sure that this list belongs in Wikipedia, but I am much more sure that about half of all our featured lists don't belong in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see the point of targeting this one, which looks quite good and is relatively encyclopedic. I don't understand the purpose of a "Primary Sources" tag on a list. In my opinion there are only two justifications for a list: As a subarticle of another article about a notable topic (as in this case English words with uncommon properties), or by independent notability. I am sure there must be plenty of newspaper fillers about the topic of this list, although for obvious reasons they are not easy to find.

The entries without citation can easily be removed. That should actually have been easier than nominating the list here. The citation style is optimal for a list with this kind of references. In more than half the cases I knew immediately what one of the citations meant without even having to look it up. Standard footnotes would be much less convenient.

"Other forms", "etymology" and "meaning" are not unsourced. It goes without saying that the same dictionaries that list these words also provide this information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy game for bean counters. That said, this style of citation does have the disadvantage that editors may in good faith introduce unsourced claims that will then appear to be sourced. But I see no way around that which isn't clumsy.

The "Uses" section is explicitly sourced to [TWL], the Tournament Word List. Only the last sentence is original synthesis (but obviously correct, at least with the official Scrabble rules as I know them).

In my opinion content like this should never be featured. But the entire Featured Lists process seems to have been set up for editors who want to get with minimal talent and minimal effort to the point where they can claim that they are producing featured content. I think it's generally a better idea to attack the deletion candidates among the featured lists with such a nomination, and not to present a lists stronger points as a reason for delisting. Hans Adler 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The entries without citation should be cited, not removed. How would removing entries help our readers?? Also, the list would then no longer meet the FL criteria of being "comprehensive".

Your comments about Featured lists overall value are quite rude, and besides which are in the wrong forum. I suggest you raise those concerns somewhere else, such as Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The list has a very clear inclusion criterion which it makes explicit: Words can only be included after they have appeared on their own in one English-language dictionary. Therefore it's not acceptable to add a word just because you think it should appear in English dictionaries. The only way to know that a word belongs on the list is by knowing the reference that proves it. Given this clear criterion, potential new entries that don't have a citation must be collected outside the main list. Since that will be a secondary list consisting entirely of original research, it doesn't belong in article space. I will start a list of potential new entries on the talk page and move the unreferenced entries there. Erroneous entries don't make a list more comprehensive, they make it incorrect and violate WP:FA?, criterion 1c: "[...] Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Amazingly there is nothing equivalent in WP:FL?, but whether this is an innocent oversight or an intentional one, content has no business being featured if it breaks one of Wikipedia's key content policies. Hans Adler 08:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving those items to the talkpage works well. I misunderstood that you meant they should simply be deleted. Sorry, and Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The general quality of featured lists is of course very relevant when we decide whether a single list should be featured or not, and truth has an unfortunate inclination to be offensive at times. Hans Adler 08:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Providing context is all well and good, but you impugned the motives and abilities of (some) editors who work on these items. Nobody has claimed that bringing a list to featured status is equivalent to bringing an article to featured status. They're obviously apples and oranges, and everybody who knows anything about the featured process understands that articles usually take vastly more work (through sheer bulk of prose, if nothing else). That's all I was trying to say. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Link to disambig is now removed. (Unless we want to link to wikt:caid)
  I agree with Hans Adler that the citation style works for this section of content. It allows easier reference than plain numbers would. However any additional references (not in the table of words) could use the standard number system.
  I've added some potential references in a list at the bottom of the talkpage. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Clearly the maintenance tag has to go/be resolved. Done. "naturalised" should be linked first time, not second. Done. Not sure why the words are bold in the list. Done. Consider making the list sortable. Not done. This doesn't seem like it would be helpful, as only the first column has any regular structure, and it's already sorted alphabetically. Why do notes etc have full stops when they're not complete sentences? Done. Some redlinked words, some not linked at all. Why? Done. Either fixed, or directed to wiktionary, or removed. Uses section is entirely unreferenced. Added some of the references that I had listed, and rewrote to eliminate the non-static list of words (the acceptable word list changes every 5 years or so). Please rewrite my in-eloquence. Don't mix date formats in the references section (e.g. Encarta) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those specific suggestions. I've fixed everything that I could (Marked amongst your bullet points).

I also added the missing item niqab.

The only concern left is the [citation needed] in the final paragraph, which I believe is incorrect as no mention is made in Scrabble letter distributions, and after a brief search the only mentions I could find turned out to be regarding a different game, Scrabble Upwords.

Anything else that needs to be done? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no major outstanding issues beside the [citation needed] tag and the mixture of date formats in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Those were fixed, so I assume this can now be closed as keep. Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have asked nom to return to comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with closure as keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:04, 6 November 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 kept by The Rambling Man 16:57, 8 November 2010 [2].

---

List of administrative and municipal divisions of the Republic of Adygea

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is an old nomination, with serious lack of inline citations. Furthermore, the format used is quite unpleasant. Before keeping its status, significant changes would be necessary. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have the significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects been notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, they haven't been (although I'm of course watching the page, being one of the authors and all). I'd be fully committed to fix whatever problems the nominator thinks this list has, providing he could be more specific. Last I checked, "unpleasant format" was a personal opinion, not a removal criterion :) As for "serious lack of inline citations"... ahem... I've been known to be accused of using too many of them, but "serious lack"? More specific comments about the proposed/expected "significant changes" would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 14:35 (UTC)

• I think "unpleasant format" means that the list is hard to read and understand, which fails Criterion 4. The prose is okay, but the tables have problems, especially the one under "Overview of administrative and municipal divisions". I also agree that the list would benefit from more inline citations.—Chris!_c/t 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. The list was actually a result of a collaboration between me (content-wise) and another editor (who came up with the layout and structure). We tried multiple approaches, but navigation-wise this one seemed to work the best. The article covers a fair amount of material, so organizing it efficiently is, of course, a challenge. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what should be improved? I'll be happy to do the actual work of tweaking the list, but I need specifics—vague complaints are hard to act on! :) Same goes for the citations—can you point out a few specific sentences? Are those unreferenced sentences perhaps a part of a bigger, referenced, passage? Can the unreferenced parts be fixed by simply attaching already existing references? Could you clarify what exactly seems to be the problem with the "overview..." table? Colors, layout, placement, something else? If the article raises questions that impede the understanding of the material, what are those questions? Those kinds of comments will help me to immediately do something to address the concerns. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 19:20 (UTC)
• major issues:

1. very short intro
2. it is very unclear why administrative divisions does not include municipal divisions
3. the prose in the history section is very choppy; at least merge the text into fewer paragraphs
4. administrative division structure: it is very hard to follow this format (no idea how it can be improved, but it has to be improved); it is also very low on inline citations
5. the overview table is not clear at all what is it talking about; i.e.: why Maykopsky District has 4 rows, two of which are not labelled/identified at all?
6. the list section can be restructured into a table

Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; here are my comments (I hope you don't mind I re-numbered your bullet points for ease of reference):

1. I'll attempt to re-write the intro tomorrow.
2. I'll add some background information as to why it is so; that's a good catch.
3. This section is a basic history background, so we tried keeping it short, leaving only the most important trends and facts. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
4. The list and the definitions come directly from the republic's law. I can add other sources, but there really isn't going to be anything new those sources will add (plus, the law is current; other sources will be somewhat out-of-date). If adding the law citation to every single sentence work for you, I'll do it, but comments made around the time the nomination had been submitted leaned to such approach being unnecessary and redundant. As for the administrative divisions format, it is hard to follow because the system being described is itself rather convoluted (in fact, I am yet to see a more convoluted system than Russia's). The list presents the concepts hierarchically, from top to bottom. I don't know of a more straightforward way to present this information. Hopefully the list isn't going to be delisted just because the concepts themselves are difficult to wrap one's mind around?
5. Maykopsky District's first two rows (in blue) show how the district's urban-type settlements correspond to the municipal urban settlements. The rest of the territory is under the direct jurisdiction of the administrative district; on the municipal side, however, that same territory is divided into eight municipal rural settlements (coded yellow; with 48 rural localities) and the inter-settlement territory (with three rural localities). See what I meant when I said the system is convoluted? :) At any rate, the table itself was a later addition made after the FL nomination had passed; I have no qualms about removing it altogether, although I think it could be helpful to people genuinely interested in figuring out how exactly the system works.
6. The list section was restructured from the table format per the comments made during the FL review nomination, during the nomination itself, and the subsequent review. The table, apparently, was too hard to follow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 20:53 (UTC)

6. Just take a look at List_of_Digimon_video_games or List of StarCraft media. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made a first pass addressing ##1–3 and removed the overview table altogether to address #5. Please let me know if that addresses your concerns and, if not, what else I could do to address them more fully. I would appreciate more comments regarding #4 (see my remark above). On #6, I would like to hear from more than one person confirming that the currently used list format is inferior to the table format Nergaal proposed. Judging from the Digimon/StarCraft examples, those table add nothing beyond a gray background and some separators—seems to me it's just a matter of taste, not something critical. It is quite a chore to switch from one format to another, which is why I would appreciate more input regarding the matter. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2010; 16:16 (UTC)

• Reply

1. lead looks good
2. while the municipal divisions issue is explained in the lead, this is not presented at all in the article text. more information should be added to the municipal division structure section
3. the history section is better but some work can be still done: I counted 6 short paragraphs formed of 2 sentences each
4. I don't like the one-sentence-per-section style now. It should be merged somehow and to help the reader, a scheme along the lines found at Tyrannosauridae#Phylogeny would be much more helpful.
5. removing it is not the best solution. I prefer having it with explanatory notes added
6. taste no; easier to follow (by having colums) yes
7. is there a reason the article is not named List of divisions of Republic of Adygea? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Replies:

1. OK, one down :)
2. Unlike with the administrative divisions, which are different from one federal subject to another, the structure/terminology/qualities of the municipal divisions are described and mandated by a single federal law. The structure of the municipal divisions is thus the same in each and every federal subject of Russia; there's no point in explaining it over and over 83 times (or make corrections in 83 places if the definitions change later). That's the main reason why the "Municipal divisions" section only gives the briefest of overviews; all the meat can be found at Subdivisions of Russia#Municipal divisions, which is linked to from the section hat.
3. The paragraph breaks are inserted in all the logical places. If you see a way to consolidate the existing material better, would you please do so? It wouldn't require the knowledge of the material; you'd be working only with the pieces which are already in there. Or perhaps you are looking for me to expand the paragraphs which are currently too short?
4. The format of this list will eventually be re-used in the rest of the article on the "administrative and municipal divisions of...". While consolidating a list of districts and cities/towns into one chart similar to the phylogeny example is doable for Adygea, it will not be a feasible option for most of the rest of the federal subjects. Adygea, with only seven districts, is atypical; federal subjects have anywhere from one to sixty districts (and the federal city of Moscow, which has a very unique administrative structure, has 125), with the median of 22.
5. I don't know a good way to explain that table, and you were right to point out at the beginning that it is confusing to uninitiated. If I (or someone else) think of a better way to summarize that information, I most certainly re-add it later on. From what I've tried so far, the result is either confusing or extremely cluttered (and thus also confusing).
6. I would still prefer to hear someone else support this; hope you understand. Like I said before, the table format was shot down in the past precisely because someone else didn't like it; that's why everything is textified. We shouldn't be switching formats back and forth every few years without a clear consensus as to why.
7. Adygea has other kinds of divisions; this article only deals with the administrative and municipal ones. Typically in Russia the administrative and municipal divisions are bundled under the "territorial" moniker (i.e., the title can be "List of the territorial divisions of the Republic of Adygea"), but I don't have a source available to back that up specifically for Adygea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)

2) Not everybody is aware of the distinction, because not everybody is aware of the issues related to divisions of Russia. For a featured content it should stand alone. Just add an introductory sentence to the section.

5) so use the diagrams used in phylogeny sections of species articles. as a featured list it should not contain confusing parts

7) just to clarify: if the article was titled simply divisions of... , what would be missing? Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

3) Let me think about it over the weekend and I'll do something next week.

5) Gotta think about this as well. If you have any ideas, could you do a rough draft of how the material should be presented?

7) Divisions of all other types would be implied but missing. Transportation zones, military units, maybe postal zones—I'm not very well versed in those, but none of them are related to the administrative/municipal divisions at all. In the end it's probably not that big of a deal, but since the list is an FL, extra care should be exercised to make sure the title is as precise as possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 20:30 (UTC)

• Comment What is the status of this nomination? Have the various concerns been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been working on this from the start, but did not have much time to address the remaining concerns in the past couple of weeks. I'm planning to return to the remaining issues in a week or two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2010; 18:52 (UTC)
    • As I seem to be the only person reviewing this here are my thoughts: the list itself has much improved over when I nominated it. The only two major problems I can still notice is that "Administrative division structure" is a bit difficult to go through (i.e. is not clear at all); and I would strongly prefer having "List of administrative and municipal divisions" in a tabulated form (which the editor would prefer to hear from other people too before doing). Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Any more news on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Nergaal? Are you good with closing this? I don't believe there's anyone else felt with outstanding comments regarding this list's FL status. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
          • I only have one major concern left (I would prefer the last section being tabulated), but considering how much this has been improved I am fine with keeping it. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments a very good list considering the esoteric subject matter. Why wait so long to link "Soviet"? Historical background - many very short paragraphs, consider merging some to make it flow and be more visually appealing? "It is still possible, however, that a referendum in the Republic of Adygea and Krasnodar Krai may be held.." this is referenced to something written in 2006, is it still valid? "Law #171" we avoid # for "number" per MOS. Avoid bold links (urban-type settlement) "As of 2007..." it's now 2010. "Source: [11]" remove space. "Municipal division structure" section - too much bold for no good reason. okrugs is bold linked, no thanks per MOS. "municipal urban okrug of the city of Maykop" no need for this to be bold. Simliarly municipal urban okrug of the town of Adygeysk. Could the districts section be tabulated? Lots of spare full stops in the references (e.g. "Adygea. .") Any English language sources at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I'll add these to my to-do list and will review them once I get a good chunk of free time. To answer your last question, no, I am not aware of any English sources dealing directly with the concept of the administrative/municipal divisions. That's not unusual in this subject area, however—as you rightfully noted, it is esoteric. Also, could you please review the discussion about tabulation (above) and clarify how you would prefer (if you still do) the section to be laid out? Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2010; 14:41 (UTC) I have addressed the minor technical issues TRM identified; please let me know if I missed anything or if there are other similar issues that need to be addressed. I have also merged a couple more paragraphs in the "Historical background" section, but I think if any more are merged, it will be hard to follow the text. The existing sections are now broken at the points of important pivotal events. Regarding the referendum, while holding it is always a possibility, the merger had not been seriously discussed since 2007. I removed the sentence about the referendum, wrapped up the section, and added a couple more references regarding the protests and the idea being put to rest.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 20, 2010; 16:47 (UTC)

Comment my primary issues resolved, and currently see no consensus for demotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 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 19:22, 20 November 2010 [3].

---

List of extreme points of Bulgaria

Notified: Mr.crabby, WikiProject Bulgaria

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a content fork of Geography of Bulgaria. Also, at 8 entires, it does not pass the minimum unofficial threshold of 10 entries. Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this list passes all criteria except for 3.b. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be a content fork, I don't see any material treating the extreme points of Bulgaria in the Geography of Bulgaria article. Also, we can't really invent more extreme points in order to get to 10 entries. Both arguments seem invalid to me. — Toдor Boжinov — 06:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral No dab links, no dead external links.

While I agree with Nergaal that it is a WP:CFORK, merging this list would mean going on a slash-and-burn of all the similar lists at {{Extreme points of Europe}}. The article is well-written, but the actual list could easily be slipped into Geography of Bulgaria. I'm on the fence at the moment. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but slash-and-burn through those won't be too hard since a large number of them are in a state similar to Extreme points of Belarus. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Delist per above. Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep My comment has been left unanswered, so I fail to see the reason to delist this specific article. In my opinion, the list is detailed enough to warrant a separate article and too detailed to be merged into Geography of Bulgaria. — Toдor Boжinov — 09:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How is this "featured" list any better than Extreme_points_of_Andorra#Extreme_points? Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? I think the difference is more than evident. If you have a problem with the existence of the whole series of extreme points articles, I don't think trying to delist an FL is the right way to go. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep passes 3b quite handily, "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists;" (emphasis mine) That part of the clause is quite important, and the recent run of delisting- or trying to make the ten item rule of thumb some form of holy writ is quite disconcerting. Courcelles 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'm just not seeing why this has to be a separate article. Why shouldn't it be merged into Geography of Bulgaria? It offers no real commentary, just a list of coordinates. Let's look at it:
  • Lat/Long graf lists the extreme points. Seriously. It says 'the northernmost point is... the easternmost is...' etc.
  • The table then repeats this information, though now offering a coordinate link. Even the sources are generally duplicated.
    • "Antarctica" is not a province of Bulgaria.
  • Elevation graf does exactly the same. Lists the highest and lowest points, though with our first piece of relevant added info (highest peak in the Balkans). For some reason it also includes other peaks, even though they have nothing to do with being an extreme point. This section has no map.
  • The table then again repeats this information.
    • Why are we told the province twice? And is the name of the range "Rila Mountain"? So some basic English issues here.
• And that's it. It has two small sets of data, and prints each one twice. Based on these merits alone I have to say delist, and strongly support it being merged into the main article. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delist I'm not convinced this is a standalone list. It's barely two short sections, which could really, really easily be merged into Geography of Bulgaria. And I doubt that anyone goes searching for "extreme points of Bulgaria]] either. It's well referenced, but wouldn't be amiss as a short addition to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delist - On the state of the references alone its enough to qualify for delist. The fact it's a content fork as well just adds to it. Afro (Talk) 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Merge and delist. 3b. Like Nergaal I think a small section would suffice. (@ Courcelles) Not sure about your intepretation of the "or topic". This isn't about 10 items, it is about an unnecessary fork. Would Extreme points of Vatican City be eligible for splitting out through eligibility by topic? This isn't the place for that discussion but if you want to discuss your interpretation of 3b "by topic" I'm happy to do so on a talk page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:10, 18 November 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 19:22, 20 November 2010 [4].

---

List of YuYu Hakusho episodes

Notified: Nominator Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel it does not meet the standards for featured list anymore. The airdates are sourced through Anime News Network encyclopedia, which is primarily user edited and is deemed unreliable. The official website sources are dead and the Waybackmachine was unable to retrieve them. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Did some minor work. The sourcing is the only real obstacle here. For the moment, I'll have to support delisting. Goodraise 05:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Managed to find the pages listed as general references in the Waybackmachine, but they're either broken or never listed the air dates to begin with. Goodraise 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• When this became a featured list, wouldn't someone have checked the references back then? The fact that the Cartoon Network doesn't list the schedule any longer, since its been years since its aired on it, doesn't mean you should start doubting the article now. Google news archive search for "YuYu Hakusho" and "Cartoon Network" had some results, if anyone wants to bother wading through that, seeing if you can find mention of when the different seasons started. Anime News Network is a reliable source for their news section. In the article already I see links to where it announces the start of the season. [5] You can find confirmation of when it started, and then the episodes all came on exactly 7 days apart until the season ended. Is there any reasonable doubt that the information in the article is valid? Dream Focus 06:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• What still remains the fact is that the sourcing is obsolete and for that reason, does not meet the standard of featured lists. You can be bold and fix the article to try and make the general consensus keep. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 06:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Response to Dream Focus: We can't be certain that reviewers back than were that thorough. Even if we could, it wouldn't change anything. You're right, though. We should always doubt everything. Waiting until sources die isn't necessary. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and is therefore inherently suspect. It is not without good reason that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy, while Wikipedia:Trustability is not. Goodraise 09:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the discussion of reviewers being thorough in 07 is relevant, There's no doubting standards have changed since then. In fact the FLCs do list a number of articles which he seems to of based the format off. Afro (Talk) 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The ANN encyclopedia slipped through as a source for a while, I believe, because I remeber reviewing the source and kicking up a fuss in January 2009. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist

• Lead intro style needs updated (i.e. we don't start with "This is a list of..")
• Caption of lead image shouldn't have a period.
• Too many [citation needed] tags.
• Ref 4 is badly formatted and appears to be IMDB which usually is considered to fail WP:RS.
• Refs need to meet WP:DASH.
• General refs are dead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Delist - per the reasonings stated by Goodraise and The Rambling Man. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist as per everything mentioned.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. ANN encyclopedia not reliable, and all aforementioned problems. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

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