Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2012

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 18:00, 26 March 2012 [1].

---

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material

Notified: Pyrrhus16, SummerPhD, 109.100.51.176, 85.132.47.9, Frankyboy5, Chelo61, MjSoldierBoy, OnirMJ, Tassedethe, WaitingForConnection, Bamse, Lightlowemon, Dabomb87, The Rambling Man, Giants2008, WikiProject Michael Jackson, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, WikiProject Songs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... This list has dramatically changed from the fully-sourced, easily navigable, visually appealing list that it was [upon promotion]. The table is gone, and ALL sources from the main list have been removed. The history suggests frequent, large edits and content disputes. 200 edits to date since the start of 2012. Rubiscous (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delist: No where even near FL quality, too many concerns to address at this time.--WillC 17:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• I was the editor who brought this list to FL status. I have been in semi-retirement from Wikipedia since 2010 and the article has certainly been hugely messed over since then. I have just reverted to the last known stable and correct version of this list, as well as fixed all of the disambiguation links. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delist - Repeated additions of unsourced, poorly sourced and fake sourced entries by various editors, including several promoting their websites have seriously compromised this list. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment – Not sure why I was notified, but I was upset to find that the primary editor's reversion into a decent version were reverted to the crap version by another editor. As someone who cares about quality, it disgusts me that someone can degrade a featured piece of content like that. The price we pay for being as open as we are, I suppose. Anyway, I reverted back to the good revision, and would like to see how things play out. If the good version stays, it should be savable, but if disputes form over the shape of the list I'm not sure what can be done (we do have a stability criterion, after all). Hoping for the best here. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think there's no due cause to remove the list in its current state but should the edit-warring continue, I would suggest a temporary protection for the page to encourage discussion on the list's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion, to invoke the stability criterion there needs to be evidence that good faith attempts to resolve the dispute have been tried and have failed. I have not seen any such evidence: the first attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page was made six days ago, but has not received any response. Fully protecting the featured version and starting an RfC might well do the trick here. It's not as if there's a shortage of people interested in the subject matter. —WFC— 19:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. List has been improved. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 13:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It was just vandalism. See Help:Reverting for instruction.--GoP_T^C_N 10:46, 14 March 2012 (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 Giants2008 22:25, 19 March 2012 [2].

---

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Notified: Trödel, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

This list uses templates for each temple, and as a result, massively exceeds the template include size. That means that most of the references do not appear, rendering the article almost entirely unverifiable. Until such a time as the references appear, (which will require a wholesale redesign of the list as far as I can see), it no longer meets the features list criteria. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delist never seen this before, wow. Needs to be modernised, "This is a list..." etc, work on MOS (en-dash), those references need to be fixed (so I guess the templates should be avoided in favour of a wikitable or similar). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Delist as is. From a quick glance:

• Didn't know about template limits.. Obviously a better way to present the information is needed
• Also for the references that do load, they need formatting correctly with accessdates, publishers, etc, and a consistent date format.
• MOS compliance is atrocious: "This is a list of", dashes "(Switzerland-1955 and England-1958)" and "(1974 - first American temple"
• Too many uncited notes
• Papeete Tahiti has a link to a non-existent image
• Those "Free image unavailable" thumbs that link to Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/Temple are ghastly and unprofessional.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I disagree. The list was promoted specifically because of the way the templates were used. It seems silly now to delist it just becuse someone else dislikes the look of it. Yes some improvements could be made, but not enough warrant delisting. Issues should have been address on talk page first.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand. The problem with the templates is not their appearance, but the fact that they cause the references not to appear, leaving the list unreferenced. And that's not considering that various other problems that the other commentators have brought up, which would also probably be sufficient for de-listing. I see nothing in the original FLC discussion that suggests the templates were in any way considered grounds for promotion. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment regarding notes/templates I've been worried for some time about the changes to MediaWiki that broke the notes. There is a workaround where all the notes would not be placed in the template but would exist on this page directly. That is not an unreasonable change, but I don't have time to do it right now. --Trödel 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Other comment I don't see how the MOS issues that have been identified rise to the level of needing to delist. Seriously en-dash's, (Switzerland-1955), "This is a list", etc. What is the current standard on the uses of en-dash use now anyway?All those things could have probably been fixed faster by the complainer than it is going to take for them to complain and then for someone else to figure out what the hell they mean by the MOS non-compliance. I really don't see how this is an efficient way to help a featured list adapt to the changing standards on Wikipedia. In any case, I'm limited in my time to contribute, so someone else will need to take the lead to address all the nits. --Trödel 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed faster? Not really. I already had the edit window open here, and I took a quick glance at the article and found a couple of standout MOS things. It would have taken longer to search through the article and then the edit window for all instances, then deleted, replaced and saved. Then I would have had to click the little tiny edit links on each template because there are a bunch of entries that also use the hyphen instead of a dash. No, it was definitely much quicker for me to mention a couple here and leave it at that for the article's regular editors to fix up. I don't have a vested interest in the upkeep or maintenance of the page, nor do I deeply care whether or not it keeps its little star. If the people who do can't be bothered, why should I do it? Admittedly though, "atrocious" may have been a bit over the top. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• MOS issues are important (it's one of the criteria) but much worse is the lack of references due to the effect of overusing templates. This is not our finest work by any means at this moment in time, to claim so is embarrassing and the bronze star it currently displays is an embarrassment to the FL community. It needs to be fixed fast or be delisted. Not to mention terribly biased prose like "Additionally, members consider the temple a place to commune with God, seek His aid, understand His will, and receive personal revelation." in the lead. This isn't a pamphlet for the LDS movement, it's an encyclopaedic article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delist (1) The guideline page Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage is clear: "Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." This list violates this principle on an unprecedented scale in my experience. I can understand that the WikiProject wants to avoid updating more than one article if information changes, but that's not an appropriate use of the template namespace. In any event, the information presented on this list (name, image, location and coordinates, announcement/dedication/rededication dates, size and architectural style) are not exactly going to change much. (2) The consequences of violating the above-mentioned guideline are that the page runs up against the template limit and that the references for the facts presented in the list are not set out on the page. To take one example, where do I go to find the references for the claim that a temple for Paris was announced on 1st Oct 2011 at the coordinates given? I have to go to Paris France Temple. That is unacceptable, particularly in something that wears a star proclaiming it to be one of Wikipedia's finest lists. It may have been acceptable back when it was promoted, but times and standards have moved on. Bencherlite^Talk 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delist Promoted over five years ago and is way out of line with MOS. The bit that bugs me is the way the temples are presented, would be much more beneficial if it was in a table, and presumably this would fix the referencing issue mentioned above. NapHit (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delist The lack of references in the article due to the templates is the major concern for me: verifiability is one of the most important mantras for Wikipedia, and for featured content to circumvent that isn't acceptable. Harrias ^talk 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The lack of references on the page is a problem and IMHO is a valid reason to delist. However, all the references exist and were working beautifully until there was a change to the way mediawiki implemented footnotes that exist in transcluded templates. The best solution, in my view, is to have the notes on the article page while still transcluding the basic temple information. As to the things I called "nits" above:

1. en-dash instead of dash - frankly during the time I've maintained this list, I've seen bots come by pages I watch and change them in seeming (to me) random ways. I really don't see what this has to do with being a featured list.

   We now expect our lists to meet the WP:MOS including WP:DASH. Sure, it's minor, but it needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

2. "This is a list of..." seems like a easy fix to me if you're no longer allowed to start a sentence with a clear explanation that this is a list, then change it to match the current intro style. Such as "Temples are...

   Times have changed, see WP:LISTS where you are informed "Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do." How many featured articles start with "This is an article about..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

3. "(Switzerland-1955)" - again fairly easy - not sure what the objection is here but it could be changed to "(e.g. Switzerland dedicated in 1955)" or something - again if the objection was clearly stated the fix would seem to be an obvious quick fix once understood

   Again, it's an en-dash issue per the MOS. However, your suggestion is even more palatable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

4. free image requests - not sure why this would be objectionable, as they are replaced as images become available. With the exception of the Tahiti image - which I'm not sure why it was deleted - but it must have been deleted recently since it was working the last time I scanned the entire list/page.

   Dead images in a piece of featured material, you must understand, detracts enormously from "our finest work". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

   In any case, the image is specific to this project, includes an iconic backdrop of the SLC temple, and is only used for announced temples where the only available images, if any, are copyrighted architectural renderings. I'd be happy to put something like "no image available yet" instead of trying to get people to contribute there image, or remove it altogether if this is an agreed upon Featured List standard. If it's the preference of a few and not an agreed standard then I'd prefer to keep it.

Finally, I really don't have the time to do copy the references from the individual pages to here right now, so maybe it will need to be delisted until the reference issue can be cleared up. However, all the other issues that have been pointed out seem to me to be minor and easily fixed (such as running a bot to replace the "-" with whatever form of dash is now in vogue). --Trödel 18:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To be honest, I spent a few minutes reviewing and found the above. There's also the general tone issues as I noted an example above, which make this far from encyclopaedic. Finally an abject overuse of templates resulting in a desperate lack of references is the final straw, regardless of the multiple style and prose issues. (On a second quick glance, you have mixed dates in the references, bare URLs showing, a badly formatted ref, an entirely unaccessible graph which is called "Statistics"... ) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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