Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/February 2023

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Notified (through ping): Golbez, Staxringold (both 2009 reviewers) and (via talk page notice) WikiProject West Virginia

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list itself is unreferenced. It's been an FL for a long time but even back in 2009, the list content should have been referenced, but it wasn't. Schwede66 18:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree this shouldn't be an FL as it stands, but this should be low-hanging fruit as far as improvement is concerned. @Kavyansh.Singh:, this is an area you've worked in, any interest in taking this on? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list relies on general references. Just as we don't need to cite every single sentence, we shouldn't need to cite every single row, when the references handle that. That said, it's fallen apart a bit in the last decade ('still living' table, party affiliation count, useless addition of lifespans and time in office, it's fallen well behind standards in other governor articles, etc.), so I won't necessarily vote to keep. But I will defend its use of referencing. --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me check whether I've got that right. Say I wanted to confirm the term for William E. Stevenson (March 4, 1869 – March 4, 1871). Which general reference do I look at to do so? Because I cannot see that there is a reference for his term. And if indeed there isn't, are you saying that's good enough? Schwede66 01:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two general references, both contain the info you seek. Especially the first one, which if you had clicked it would have plainly offered the info you wanted. Are you complaining about the content of a citation you didn't bother clicking? --Golbez (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there is a reference in that list that confirms the term details (March 4, 1869 – March 4, 1871). The one that you pointed me to didn't; it merely confirms the years, which isn't good enough (at least in my books). It's also not good enough to expect a reader to go hunting in a long list of references. Schwede66 03:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm. So, you saw that there were links in that page, right? That will take you to the specific info on a specific governor? Are you implying that it's too much to expect our readers to click in a source to get more info? Should we use anchors to cite the specific words of a page, for those too unfortunate to know how to use their browser to search for words? You've been here a long time so I can't chalk this up to trolling or ignorance, so exactly how are you getting that it's improper to do anything but hand-feed our readers the sources? Your argument against expecting them to click would seem to remove any offline citations, since that would be impossible for them to see. --Golbez (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read more carefully what I'm talking about. What you talk about in your reply is something completely different. Schwede66 05:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The one you pointed me to didn't, it merely confirms the years." Yes, and if you then clicked on the link labeled "William E. Stevenson" on that page, it would take you to the dates, as well as all other info on his term. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I'm rather amused that the article for your example not only doesn't cite his lifespan directly, but the only web citation in the page doesn't include his birthdate without clicking a second link. --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A chunk of the introductory text discusses the ages of governors at appointment, I don't think its unreasonable for a reader to expect to be able to verify this without clicking through to article pages where the lifespans may or may not be cited. Likewise dates of office. The general reference mentioned above is no longer live and the archived version covers only pre-2009 governors. We are currently telling our readers this is one of our best lists - Dumelow (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ... didn't say they should ... okay, you know what, y'all have fun. I'm not defending the list, so I have no more purpose here. Y'all burn whatever straw men you need. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cited the whole list to the Blue Book, and linked to the legislature's download section for the Blue Book. Might need a little work—I don't usually use this particular template, and the publication format is unusual. But it was pretty easy to find the source—the Blue Book was the first thing that I thought of, and it came up quickly in a Google search. The list on pages 328 and 329 covers just about everything in the table, except perhaps the dates of birth and death—which are presumably cited in each governor's individual article. As for the article "falling apart", someone does seem to have made major improvements to the table recently, so that's a plus. P Aculeius (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! That's better. Whether the exact life range of each governor needs to be even part of this list is something that a FL review can establish (I'd say it's irrelevant detail but others may see it differently). And if it is decided that the life range should be part of the table, I'm sure there will be discussion on whether that needs referencing (my hunch is that it ought to be). Schwede66 03:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful to have, so I would keep it. I don't think each entry needs to have a separate citation for this one detail, provided that readers can locate the information in more detail from the individual articles about the governors, whose names are linked in the table itself. So as long as they have their own articles, there's no need for repetitive citations in just one column. P Aculeius (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the "Years are rounded" note intended to convey? CMD (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Introduced last month with this edit. Makes no sense. Schwede66 05:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone looks at the version of the page before someone began revising the table in September—a sequence of edits very visible and at the top of the page history, so I don't see how it could be missed—they'd see that the previous version used fractions for partial years—"1½", "2½". Presumably the editor who revised the table thought that this was unnecessary: you can either state whole years or years and months—which also need to be rounded off, unless you want to add the exact number of days for partial months. I would guess that noting "years are rounded" was meant to forestall someone from conscientiously adding fractions back in to the table for precision. P Aculeius (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However, the note is (and has always been) with the column of the term dates. The term length is the column to the right of it. Schwede66 20:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably misplaced, and should have been on the following line. That said, it seems unnecessary, so I've removed it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has stalled out with no consensus to delist. It looks like the nominator's major concerns were addressed, so I'm going to close this. I did add some accessibility fixes as well. --PresN 14:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Notified: Omg its will run, EurekaLott, TdanTce, Jayron32, Crzycheetah, WP Lists, WP Cleveland, WP USA, WP National Football League

A 2007 candidate that is almost wholly unsourced - most of the inline citations are actually unsupported notes. This is particularly concerning as part of this list falls under WP:BLP as many of these draft picks are still living. This would not pass WP:FLC in its current state and needs significant work. Hog Farm _Talk 17:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unsourced. There is a considerable list of references at the end of the article. Can you please itemize which of the things listed at WP:WIAFL this fails, it would be helpful so that someone can fix it up. The "wholly unsourced" is blatantly not true, the entire list is verifiable by sources already listed in the article in the references section. If you can identify a specific problem someone can fix with information that cannot be found, it can be fixed. This is an easily verifiable list, as there are lots of sources, in addition to the ones in the article. See, for example pro football reference, pro football hall of fame (requires a little more work, but still verifiable], etc. --Jayron32 18:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(b) statements are sourced where they appear ... Hog Farm _Talk 18:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You accidentally forgot the functional part of item (b). The part you forgot to quote states "they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (bold mine for emphasis). The statement contains a link for clarification to WP:MINREF, which notes the four required inline citation. Individually citing every draft pick to the same inline citation is WP:OVERCITEing. It is sufficient to have a general cite for the whole list. --Jayron32 18:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: - withdrawing this. I still think if this citation usage was sent through FLC today it would get lit up like a Christmas tree, but I'm not going to argue this. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine letting other voices comment on this. There's just the two of us commenting, feel free to wait for other voices. I invite them as well, and don't think we need to storm off just because I happened to ask for more details. You have concerns, I disagreed, lets let a few more voices ve heard here before we take our ball and go home in a huff. --Jayron32 19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did add the Pro Football Reference citation I noted above. It wasn't in the list yet, but it does allow the entire list to be verified. Is there anything else that isn't verifiable from that reference? Is there anything specific that needs fixing?--Jayron32 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick skim, it looks like it's all covered now. I think all of the sources are decent enough (about.com isn't always RS, but it looks like this author has written for the New York Times before, so it's fine). As it's really just a citation style disagreement, I think it's fine now. I'm more familiar with featured articles, where it is expected to painstakingly cite everything inline, but featured list is a bit of a different animal. Hog Farm _Talk 19:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to include their picks from the three AAFC drafts as well, for completeness. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has stalled out with no consensus to delist. It looks like the nominator is fine with dropping it, so I'm going to close this. I would prefer for the tables to have explicit cites, however, or that, at minimum, there should be a statement above the tables saying which general references were used rather than having the reader guess. I did add some accessibility fixes as well. --PresN 14:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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