Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed 1 kept
March 13 promoted 11 failed 2 kept
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
May 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
August 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed 2 kept
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed 1 kept
April 20 promoted 17 failed 1 kept
May 23 promoted 14 failed
June 22 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
July 29 promoted 20 failed 2 kept/1 removed
August 41 promoted 15 failed 3 removed
September 42 promoted 11 failed 1 kept/1 removed
October 43 promoted 17 failed 2 kept
November 40 promoted 18 failed
December 38 promoted 15 failed 2 removed
2008
January 46 promoted 18 failed 6 removed
February 34 promoted 16 failed 10 removed/3 kept
March 65 promoted 9 failed 4 removed/2 kept
April 48 promoted 25 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 50 promoted 39 failed 1 removed
June 10 promoted 9 failed

Contents

[edit] CZW World Heavyweight Championship

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: As this is a slightly unusual case, I shall explain my actions in more detail than I would for promoting/failing a FL candidate
  • This has run ten days without attracting any votes to remove other than the nomination.
  • The fact that this nominator's first action as a (registerred) editor should affect how the nomination is considered
  • The fact the nominators has been reported as blocked points to this being a "bad faith" nomination
  • A newly promoted FL shouldn't be nominated for removal unless it has undergone major changes

Result: Keep as a FL. (I'll archive this presently) Tompw (talk) (review) 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of its sources are from cagematch.de, which is a thoroughly and entirely unreliable source. Cagematch.de is a fansite, made by fans without any sort of fact-checking process. How can the list be reliable if the source is not reliable? I don't think that this should be a featured list.==Mouse Pad of Doom 17:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: It says at the very top of WP:FLRC "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates)"; this list was just promoted less than two hours ago. I would also note that the nominator created this account exactly two minutes before nomination. I'll abstain from voting and let the community decide, but this doesn't seem like a very sturdy nomination. --MarcK 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that the article had been nominated for status until it had passed, at which time I became aware of the nomination.==Mouse Pad of Doom 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else find it odd this account was created and in its first minute of creation it listed this for a featured list removal? –– Lid(Talk) 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the normal procedures may have been ignored, which is understandable if MousePad is a newbie. There are several reasons for avoiding FLRC so soon after promotion. These include:
    • The arguments for removal may already have been discussed. Continuing that discussion, so soon after closure, would be disruptive. This is not the case here as nobody commented on cagematch.de.
    • It is most discouraging for the nominator to go from joy to grief. Sorry MarcK.
    • Once promoted, a list/article gets more exposure. This may cause a period of instability in the text, which should not be pounced on. This isn't the case here, though promotion is cited as the reason MousePad noticed the list nomination.
    • The removal discussion may be less likely to see fresh eyes and ideas.
If the reason for removal was one of style or had already been discussed, I'd certainly argue that it should be closed. However, MousePad raises a serious issue—failure to comply with a core policy: WP:Verifiability. It may be that some of the reviewers did not notice that the website was an amateur production. Certainly, being in German makes it hard to judge (being a non-English source counts against it). I've examined the "About us" pages, which includes details of the Cagematch editors. They seem reasonably organised, and it is not a one-man outfit. However, they are mostly students having a bit of fun in their spare time. Wikipedia, IMO, should not be founded on this kind of source, for it is not really any different from letting those guys edit on WP with their own original text. Opinions differ here: some recent discussions on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability have suggested relaxing the requirements for "pop culture" articles. It is possible that Cagematch is a sufficiently well-established and known fansite that it meets the proposed relaxation of the rules. However, at present, WP:V has not been changed to (generally) allow such sources. There's always WP:IAR if you feel very strongly that this source is OK.
In summary, if I'd bothered to review this list when it was a candidate, I'd have been an Oppose. The current text of WP:V does not, IMO, allow such sources to be considered reliable. If alternative sources cannot be found, it may be better to remove this list since keeping it as an FL sets an example in opposition to WP:V. Colin°Talk 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Added a couple of sources, first a published book source on the pre-2000 title changes (sadly my copy only goes until 2000) and then the rest from Solie's Vintage Wrestling website which has a very good title history section - if nothing else then Solie's website corroborates the champions, dates & locations found on cagematch.de. Independent corroboration on a subject that's not likely to be found outside of wrestling related websites. MPJ-DK 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Note as per this checkuser the opener of this is an open proxy SPA and a likely JB196 puppet. –– Lid(Talk) 09:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
it's also almost a text book case of "bad faith nomination" IMO MPJ-DK 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks MPJ-DK, for addressing the WP:V concerns. Those changes, together with the information that has come to light about the nominator, mean I'm happy for this FLRC to be dismissed. Colin°Talk 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No problemo, glad I could help get this resolved MPJ-DK 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: nominator blocked indef. Moreschi Talk 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Still a Featured list.

This was promoted in January of this year. It has since been entirely rewritten so as to be mostly made of prose, and is not a list anymore by any stretch. Circeus 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (unless you intend to nominate it for FA :)). All of the prose revolves around a list of various types of divisions of Adygea. This list is also one of the many lists in the series. If "too much prose" is the only objection, I don't see how defeaturing this list is justified.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] List of states with nuclear weapons

Delisted This list clearly fails criteria (d) "uncontroversial" and (e) "stable". Circeus 19:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This was made a featured list in 2005. I question how comprehensive and well written this article is. There is a lengthy debate on the talk page about poor and unsystematic writing and lack of information that should be mentioned. There have even been suggestions that the list needs to be rewritten from scratch in order to correct all of the problems. The sourcing is poor and there are a number of citation needed tags. KnightLago 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, hold the bus! There are a total of 3 citation needed tags in an article with 57 references. The subject is controversial and will attract countering points of view about the way its written, but from what I can see there is basically a single user (User:NPguy) suggesting certain changes; hardly a "lengthy debate". Previous suggested improvements have been integrated into the article. Are these really grounds for delisting or just more just improvement suggestions? —Moondyne 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Two "citation needed tags," 58 references now. I did some Googling about this "Saab A36" bomber, also known as Saab Project 1300, but I didn't find anything too reliable. Apparently it is covered in an article "In issue 4/1991 of the magazine Flygrevyn" but... I don't speak Flygrevyn ;-) TomTheHand 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraphs on a controversial topic have no citations or other problems:

  • United States
  • Soviet Union
  • United Kingdom
  • France - one citation for a single sentence
  • North Korea - one citation to another WP article
  • Iran - the first sentence runs four lines
  • Nazi Germany
  • Poland
  • Spain - one citation to a Spanish source, is there nothing in English?
  • Sweden
  • Yugoslavia
  • Bulgaria
  • Canada - one citation for entire paragraph
  • Italy
  • Lithuania
  • Netherlands

The current citations themselves are a mess too. Numbers 1-2, 12, 14, 16-17, 19-20 are improperly formatted, missing access dates etc. These numbers have broken external links: 3-11, 13-15. Number 9 links to GlobalSecurity.org when it is supposed to be for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Also, numbers 5 and 8 have two different sources each under one number. I haven't seen this done before, so I am not sure if this is correct or not. Number 21 directs you to another WP article for citation. I stopped at 21 but I could keep going. Also, the external link to Pakistani Nuclear Development is a 404.

NpGuy and 2 IP's raise a number of issues on the talk page that I think should be taken care of. Read through the dispute section here. There seems to valid criticisms that I don't see being resolved. KnightLago 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that 69.143.20.172 is NpGuy, and I can't see a second IP. I'm not dismissing his concerns by the way, just pointing out that it appears to be an individual rather than several editors. But anyway, thanks for the specifics: I'm sure the referencing and other issues can be dealt with. —Moondyne 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I sign all my comments. I've had one comment on this article and chimed in on another. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, which has its good and bad points. This is not one of the good ones. NPguy 01:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings all. I'm CP Guy, not to be confused with NP Guy (FYI, and not to be snide at all, but folks who don't know the difference between the two probably should not be editing an article about proliferation issues. CP and NP are acronyms for terms of art used in the field). I did put one comment unsigned, when I first started on Wikipedia, the other's signed CP guy is me.

This is a bad, bad article. Much of the article deals with states that pursued and then abandoned NW programs (called "rollback" within the field, as an FYI) or potential nuclear weapons states. Numerous books and articles have beeb written on these subjects, including by such serious proliferation policy scholars/practitioners as Lavoy, Reiss, Solingen, Einhorn, Dunn, Hersman, and Peters, and yet none of these folks are referenced. Why? Also, there is an entire journal dedicated to studying this very subject, Nonproliferation Review, but it is never referenced. Again, why? The only answer I can come up with is that this page was written by dilettantes who do not really understand the subject. This is a serious subject, with serious authors writing volumes on the subject of which this page is ignorant. The citaton list, in short, is a joke (remember, quantities of citations doesn't equal quality).

The statements about metrics, definitions, organizing principels, etc., being problematic, are correct. The page was written in an entirely hap-hazard way and does not relfect any intellectual rigor. This would not stand up at the university level, much less at the serious academic/policy level. The page needs to be scrapped, and redone using a standardized set of definitions, etc. The paradox, of course, is that wikipedia is unable to do this since it is open to anyone's editing. In short, this subject is too complex for wikipedia. Wikipedia is great, but it should know its limitations. This is an area that is beyond Wikipedia's limits, and we should accpet that. Scrap the page, because people who know little about the subject and turn to Wikipedia to learn about it will either go away confused (at best) or misinformed (at worst). CP Guy, June 28, 2007, 4:26 EDT.

For all of the complaining above I have not really seen too many attempts to actually improve the article by those who are complaining. If you are arguing that the article should be totally re-written from scratch, that's fine, but do the re-writing first and then substitute it in for the old one. In any case, complaining that this subject, among all others, is uniquely un-coverable by Wikipedia is pretty silly. If you don't want to put in the work, fine, but the argument that this is just too tough is silly. Wikipedia is edited by all sorts of people — including experts — and the need for experts to help police articles with a lot of amateur appeal is not unique to this article (it is, I would argue, the fundamental conflict at the heart of Wikipedia—though I do think it is often a productive conflict, when it is not being a frustrating one).
In any case, I do agree that two of the sections ("7. States formerly possessing nuclear programs", "8. Other nuclear-capable states") need to be systematized and made more rigorous. They are currently very loose with facts and assertions. The other sections, though, do not strike me as being terribly incorrect — in some cases some increased concision would be good but otherwise they carry the basic facts across.
Just a note on references: many of the very brief sections on the US, UK, France, etc. are basically sentences about which entire articles are written. There is little need to provide a citation for a sentence like " It was the first nation to develop the hydrogen bomb, testing it ("Ivy Mike") in 1952 and a deployable version in 1954 ("Castle Bravo")" since either of those links will confirm what the sentence says about them (and have their own references).
Should it be featured? I have no opinion, personally. The criteria for what "featured" means seems to change regularly and I have not been keeping up to date. --Fastfission 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that at the very least, States formerly possessing nuclear programs and Other Nuclear capable states should be deleted. As one of the "complainers," I will note that I have tried to edit this page, only to have my edits overturned and my IP address blocked from being able to edit (I deleted the Spanish nuclear weapon program section, and gave justification for doing so. The only response I got to my justification was having my IP address blocked). I have been hesitant to engage in more changes, for obvious reason.

Moreover, Fastfission, you assert that my argument about the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia is "silly", but you don't provide any evidence to back this up, and you don't address any of the substantive points I offered as to why pages such as this are beyond the limits of Wikipedia. In addition, you seem to (inadvertantly) support my proposition that the best way to address this issue is beyond the limits of wikipedia: Have one person rewrite the article and repost it. I would be happy to do so (and have published on this subject in print), but quite honestly, the problem is that once it is posted, who is to stop a dilettante from bastardizing and tearing apart a cohesive set of metrics, methodologies, and definitions? The result would be what we have today: Something that starts strong ("list of states with nuclear weapons") but becomes an incoherent mess (list of states with past programs). Wikipedia does not allow for any intellectual rigor that would stand up in the academic or policy worlds, and I can tell you that with what is currently up on the page, people who don't know much about the subject and turn to it will come away worse off then they already were. If the goal of wikipedia is to spread knowledge, that's fine, but don't be so blind as to the limitations of wikipedia that your actions actually result in the dissemination of poor information. CP Guy, July 2, 12:42.

  • Without wishing (or having the knowledge) to engage in the detailed debate about the shortcomings of this page, I believe that enough concerns have been raised to support removing this as a featured list. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.