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 Dabomb87 16:26, 31 October 2009 [2].

---

Notified: WP:BASEBALL, Spangineer, Katydidit

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the criteria. It should have been nominated when the merger occurred, but still better late than never.

• Lead
  • Mostly unreferenced
  • The first sentence is now obsolete.

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Members of the Baseball Hall of Fame
  • The section title should be shortened and not to echo the title of the page

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The sentence explaining the "year" column should be a footnote

Actually, in keeping with the majority of recent baseball lists, it's been moved into the key. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • A "key" should be before the abbreviations, not as a footnote

done --Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The † and ‡ symbols should be clickable

These were moved into the key. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the explanations are too long for the "key"?--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally? Yes, I do. I didn't put them there. But I think it's pointless to make all of the daggers clickable. It would make more sense to remove the daggers, replace them with em-dashes, representing blanks, since that's truly what they are, and add a footnote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's too long and that the daggers should be replaced and given a footnote. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The "year" column should be centered

done --Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The "Name" and "Percent of vote" should be sorted properly. The names are sorted by first name; should be by last name

done --Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "percent of vote" is not sorting properly still.--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking out those symbols as discussed above would take care of that problem. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The images need proper captions and alt texts
    • Alt text has been added since the FLRC began, and the captions now in place seem reasonable. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes
  • The meaning of the word "pioneer" should be sourced
  • The † and ‡ notes should be sourced
• The list itself is hardly sourced. Is it sourced by an "external link"? It should be shown clearer

--Cheetah (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep – it's not ready to stay in its current form, but all it needs are references and a lead image, both of which I can easily provide within the two-week removal period. Compared to some older lists, this one isn't nearly that bad. I'll get to work on it forthwith. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This article is now fully within the current FL standards. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Keep Agree w/ KV5. If these issues are still pending in two weeks, it should be delisted, but I imagine we can fix these easily. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Keep Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was getting there :-D! Hope I've learned a little something since my first attempt. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think we should make a separate column in the table that indicates whether they were elected by the BBWAA, Veterans Committee or committee on the Negro Leagues. This info is readily available.[3] Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very valuable, would heartily support this addition. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice find.--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just saw that some member are tabbed as "Executive" yet there is no "Executive" field listed in the key. Not sure if this is intentional or not, since I think the Hall groups Execs and Pioneers as kind of the same category. Just wanted to bring this up. - Masonpatriot (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as I just said on the talk page, I think it'd be great if we added what team each player was inducted from. This information already exists at each team's page but it'd be nice to have it all centered; for example someone may want to compare how many players each team had inducted. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason that this is not included is due to the sometime arbitrary nature for which teams are selected. As the Hall, not the player, has the say over with which team a player had the most impact, and because their decisions are sometimes contentious for the players, the info isn't included. It's arguable, for some players, which team he should have been inducted with; he may have pitched 7 seasons for one team and won a lot of games and then won a World Series in two seasons with another, and thus was chosen to be inducted with the second team. Because of the possibly contentious nature of the information, I don't think it's necessary, and could cause stability issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wish I had seen that reply earlier, because I added teams. You can roll it back if you think it should be pulled, but I do think it's worthy of inclusion as it is the Hall's standards. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that since most of the players are inducted as wearing a specific team on their cap, it's information that should be available in a list detailing inductees to the hall. While you can argue that Reggie Jackson should be wearing an A's cap, in the end he's in the hall with a Yankees cap, and this is indisputable. Redwolf24 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be preferable to change it to inducted as, or something along those lines? Redwolf24 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be preferred. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've made the change. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone else feel that the positions column is too wide? This could be solved by abbreviating executive "EXEC" and pioneer "PIO" or "PNR", as is done at the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame, and also by placing those with multiple positions on multiple lines so it's not so wide (also with the "career" column). Also, I believe that the abbreviations should follow a common format, so they should all be all caps, like "1B" and "2B", resulting in "MGR" as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Redwolf24 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. But we still need to source the term "Pioneer". I did a quick search and came up with nothing. We've got another week, right? --Muboshgu (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A week at minimum. If we are still actively working, the delegates likely won't close this until we start ignoring it, finish it, or quit. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done the dabbies. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was my bad. Next I'm going to add {{sort}} to the percentages to make them sort correctly, just as soon as I can. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added a couple inlines and another general reference, and plan on adding a few more cites when I get time. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Does anyone object to the multi-lining of dates to reduce the width of this table? I want to get specific line-by-line references in the table for each inductee. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have removed all positions which are linked in the table (all the field positions plus Ump and Manager) because the link provides as much information as the key (per another FLC comment). Left Pioneer and Executive, as they are unlinked. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with this edit. It necessitates readers having to drag back up to the key to find out what a position is if they do not know. With a link, they can simply click. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So how do we fix the percentages? We need to take those symbols out, but then a footnote goes in? Does that mess with the sorting? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't hurt the sort because all em-dashes will sort the same way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But do we insert a link for the footnotes? Would that interfere with the sort? --Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are using the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates, it shouldn't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for pointing that out. I'll read up on the use in a bit then put it to use. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are 2 citation need tags in the key.—Chris!_c/t 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, we know. We're still working on it. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I think this has got really close to keep, but basically there are still outstanding issues that have not been addressed and this page hasn't been edited in almost a week. Hopefully this !vote will be a motivating factor rather than discouragement, because lots of good work has been done previously. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, motiviating factor... this fell off my radar for a little bit but we can still finish off the fixes. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still been on my list of things to do but I've been very busy. I'll try to push it back to the top of the heap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update on sourcing issue for footnotes

OK, so I've considered the sourcing options. If we are indeed sourcing all of the individual rows to their HoF page (as we should), then the notes for percentage of voting do not need to be sourced. The rows source themselves. Thus, we can just put in the em-dashes in the blank cells with their footnotes and be done with that part. The second half of note 1 ("In some years, voting was done by order of preference, with one or more candidates receiving greater weight than others with the same number of votes; also, the committee would sometimes move to make a selection unanimous once the necessary number of votes was attained for a particular candidate.") is at this point unverifiable and unimportant. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Obviously sourcing everybody like that is the way to go, but it's tedious and will take some time on our part to finish them all. As far as the unanimous selection thing, we'll have to do something as in the case of Lou Gehrig, and anyone else who might've been allowed in by unanimous consent, as the page doesn't specify it clearly. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those inducted by special election likely will not have released percentages either; that seems to be a pattern with the HoF. If it's out of the ordinary, they don't release voting details. A pattern, unfortunately, isn't a source, because I've found one and not the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Negro League Committee vote totals for 1972 were apparently released publicly, at least if you believe the Spokane Daily Chronicle. Not sure about the other years yet. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, please let me know if you need help sourcing the individual players. This is the kind of work I enjoy doing. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do; we'd love all the help we can get. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourcing the individuals is much appreciated. I don't have the time or patience for that job right now, so thank you. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About half the players are now individually cited. Also, I found a book on Google News that uses the term "pioneer contributer". Would this be acceptable as a source if the key entry was shortened slightly? Giants2008 (17–14) 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fine source. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two and all fixed.—Chris!_c/t 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lead image could be bigger. Only place its location is mentioned appears to be in the caption. Can we put this info in the opening sentence of the lead and then split the current stuff off into a second sentence? We have an "As of July 2009" - can this now be updated? Minor point. "Under the 2007 revised rules..." you've already said these are the current rules, why do we need to repeat this? "Over the years" whistful indeed. Any non-American winners? Worth noting? NLC key - should that be Negro League? Why so many unreferenced with no boxes? Percent of vote - isn't Percentage more generally accepted? You could even say % if you liked. And that column doesn't sort for me in Safari. Method of Induction, minor point but why is Induction capitalised? Same with "Primary Position"? UMP is not in the key - its not really a position is it? Blanks in position would be better as en-dashes. Be consistent with decimal places on the % - Appling is just "84%" while Foxx is "79.2%" and everyone else appears to be two d.p.s. Frick's range of dates - why -1951 then 1951-? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Made most of the changes suggested, and have comments below for the ones I didn't make: I made the lead image 250px. See if that works, or if it can be larger. Missed the Negro league capitalization one. Will go back and do it when I'm done here. There are no sources I can find that talk about how many non-Americans are in the Hall. From what I can tell, they aren't lumped into their own category by the American media. Frick: I'm guessing that's because he changed jobs in 1951, from National League president to Major League Baseball Commissioner. While I'm here, why not remove the note with the cite tag in it? Is an explanation really needed for why there are no figures, considering that it's all original research without a cite? This appears to be the last major obstacle to keeping this. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note on Negro leagues: the "Negro leagues" are correctly referred to with "league" in lower case. The Negro leagues were a collection of leagues, none of which were actually named "Negro League" (there were the Negro National League, American Negro League, etc). The committee considers careers of players from all of these leagues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] decimal places still not consistent. Decimals done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] % col still doesn't sort for me in my Safari browser. I'd like to see a note for Frick as to why his dates show -1951 and then 1951-... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note added. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: the cite tag is gone because I removed the part of the note that was uncited as false. Several of the vote totals were released, as a look at the newspaper refs I added confirms. I'm on Internet Explorer and the sorting works for me, so I won't be of much help with sorting on Safari. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use IE8 and the sorting is all messed up in the % col. The "100%" and "-" cells don't sort properly. The only solution is to use the sorting templates. Giants2008, try sorting 4 times, and you'll see that it sorts differently every time.--Cheetah (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serves you right for using IE8!  :-p The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, I have problems with that col in Safari. So per Cheetah, it needs fixing... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a lot of really good work done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep —Chris!_c/t 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Contributor keep – Did a lot of work to help this one along, and believe that it once again meets FL criteria, though I have a natural inclination to feel that way. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional keep When the key for the positions is added, I'll be satisfied. --Cheetah (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You got it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We did a good job here. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dabomb87 13:22, 3 October 2009 [4].

---

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey

Fails criteria #6. I'm the main contributor of this page, so no need to leave myself a talk page message informing myself of the discussion I opened. :) iMatthew ^talk at 02:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has WP:HOCKEY been notified? Obviously, I will have to close this FLRC, so I will mostly stay out of this FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done (it originally slipped my mind), and yes you will. :) iMatthew ^talk at 03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think it fails criteria 6 because it does not change "day to day" as the criteria says it shouldn't. Yes it does change once in awhile but Captains and Assistants are relatively stable throughout the year. It does not change on a daily basis far from it, might change at the worst once or twice a month and isn't a source of edit wars which is the other part of criteria 6. PS. You might also want to notify GoodDay as his 479 contributions to the article far surpass your 29 so you are by far not the main contributor (or atleast not the only).-DJSasso (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as well. You are focusing too much on the letter of the law, so to speak, rather than the spirit of it. At the beginning of the season, there will be a short burst of changes, absolutely. These are being noted and updated as they happen, so the article is remaining accurate (the spirit of criteria 6). After this short period, the article remains reasonably stable. This will always be a dynamic list, but so far as I am aware, FLC does not exclude dynamic lists at this time. Resolute 05:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process." Edit wars, no? It isn't even edited that much daily, period. Grsz¹¹ 05:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, I've notified GoodDay. Grsz¹¹ 05:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Grsz11, 'tis appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It doesn't fail citeria 6 as the list is stable enough, actually far more stable than many governments. I don't think it should be deleted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It would be a perplexing triumph of form over substance to delist the page every year around this time only to relist it a few months later (when the burst of edits is sufficiently in the past). -Rrius (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I guess I was wrong! Heh, very sorry everyone. Dabomb, would you mind just closing this? Djsasso and Resolute's rationales convince me I'm wrong. :) iMatthew ^talk at 12:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though I'm not surprised by the nomination, particulary when a captain or alternate captain is injured & out of a lineup (even for just 1-game), IPs tend to guickly add in the 'temporary' replacements. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This FLRC has been closed. I encourage editors to be vigilant in keeping the list current. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [5].

---

Notified WikiProject Football and Qwghlm

This list was brought up in a question during the recent FLRC delegate election, and it struck me as failing to meet modern FL standards. It has been nominated previously, and the FLRC resulted in a rare no-consensus decision. The primary issue there was the scope of the list, which is not my main concern. I have one comment on it below, but there are other pressing matters as well:

• Criterion 2: The lead is very short and inadequate for an FL nowadays. The style of the first sentence (This is a list of...) is discouraged now at FLC, so that should be changed. Basically, it needs quite a bit of expansion.
• Criterion 3: The list is defined as including players with 100 or more appearances. In that case, why are numerous players who had less than 100 appearances included just because they are active? If they are to be included, it should say so somewhere.
• Criterion 4: Not the biggest issue, but Denilson is sorting at the top, instead of in the Ds.
• Criterion 5: If the active players stay, they need en dashes for year range instead of hyphens. Also, the image needs alt text.
• Perhaps most importantly, the referencing needs major improvements. There are no inlines in the lead; these should be added as the lead is expanded. The Gunnermania general reference is a personal website, and by no means qualifies as a reliable source. This was brought up during the last FLRC, and I'm surprised that the list was kept with it still included.
• Two disambiguation links need to be fixed.

If you need a model, List of Birmingham City F.C. players looks like a good list to follow, though the inclusion criteria is different. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there's certainly no reason to include the entire current squad, that's blatant recentism. Let them earn a place on the list like everyone else. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gunnermania site could be replaced with Soccerbase, their data should be good from 1996 onwards. I might have a crack at starting remedial work on this article later today.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced all sources with the club's official player database. Removed current players with less than 100 apps. Fixed dabs. Added alt text. Denilson now no longer in the table so sorting on his name not an issue. Dashes fixed. More to come..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now expanded the lead and added inline refs. Please let me know if there's any more work you feel needs to be done..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks worlds better than what it originally was. One minor formatting question I have: are the dates in references 3, 4 and 6 supposed to be access dates? Giants2008 (17–14) 01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good spot - now fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm about ready to close this FLRC—good work to all. Can reviewers double check to make sure this meets all criteria? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Quickly checked the list again, and the criteria all appear to be met. Chris did a great job fixing the list up. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Why not just link Arsenal straight away? It won't be bold because it's not the title of the list, so no breach of MOSBOLD if it was linked.
• For such simple inclusion criteria (i.e. at least 100 appearances), perhaps the criterion could be included in the italic note at the top to make things really clear?
• Playing positions key - too much overcapitalisation, e.g. "Inside Forward" should just be "Inside forward".
• Rutherford's dates are confusing as he ends in 1923 and then restarts in 1923...
• Arsenal F.C. is a supercategory of Arsenal F.C. players, isn't it? Is it needed?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just back from a short Wikibreak, will get to those points ASAP, hopefully later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done bar Rutherford's dates, I need to check them with the source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently Rutherford left Arsenal to join Stoke in March 1923, but returned to Arsenal in September of the same year, so the dates are in fact correct. Can you suggest a clearer/less confusing way to show it...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose the best solution, since the facts are indubitably the facts, is to add a note so that anyone asking the question I've just asked needn't ask it! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:24, 14 October 2009 [6].

---

Notified:Underneath-it-All, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there is not a single chart position that is sourced, it includes b-sides, the music video directors do not have a single source and this article fails 2009 standards for a featured list. Mister sparky (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please notify relevant editors/Wikiprojects.—Chris!_c/t 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have done. Mister sparky (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues: Chart positions, directors, a couple of unreleased songs arent't sourced. B-sides should be removed, and the lead needs to be expanded. Suede67 (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the chart positions are cited, they're listed under "Chart positions" in the References section. It's just that they aren't inline cites. It shouldn't be more than an afternoon's work (for somebody who isn't offended by Mr. Blunt's music) to bring this up to snuff... indopug (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist
  • The lead remains rather short
  • It's very hard and confusing to verify the chart positions
  • There are 3 dead links
  • The references aren't formatted properly

--Cheetah (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist

Lead needs expanding and recent bits in the table are not sourced. Aaroncrick (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:24, 14 October 2009 [7].

---

Notified: WP:WikiProject Metal, WP:WikiProject Progressive Rock, User:Blackngold29.

3b. Only thing that will be added into the main article would be the timeline. As for everything else, it is already on the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why would this not be grounds to delete all 68 List of band members articles? The essential components to a band are its music and its members; these two components should be included in the main article of every band. Merging a featured list into a C-class article simply seems counter-productive. blackngold29 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this band only has 9 members, which violates the community rule of 10. I purely nominated this list for FLRC because of that 3b criteria, and only that. If this band had 15+ current/former members, then it wouldn't have been nominated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make a difference if I added a sentence or two about three singers who were in the band for about one show each? They aren't really considered "real members" today, and there's very little out there about them, but I may be able to come up with some sources if that'll put it over the 10 mark. blackngold29 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have to agree with BlacknGold here. Looking over the Dream Theatre article, it is more than long enough to warrant sub articles that go in depth on specific topics. This article contains plenty of well sourced information to stand alone.

I also believe the avenue of approach is to consider a merger rather than delisting it (As it would be automatically delisted if a merger was sucessful) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is to go through an FLR, and if it is successful, the list is merged. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to BNG29, those shouldn't be included into the article, as they weren't "officially" band members of Dream Theater, and didn't contribute to any of their releases from what I see. To reply to Floydian, most, if not all of the lead, is copied information from the History section of the main article. The released contributions are also in that section of the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be splitting hairs, but I wrote the lead from scratch. Obviously there are similarities, but it wasn't a copy and paste job. Also, the lead is cited throughout where the main article is seriously lacking citations. blackngold29 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it offended you in any way, but I just thought that most of the information in this article should be on the history of the main one. In a trying not to sound like I own the article way, I just think the information in this article can be put into the main one. Having quality is better than having stars (read that somewhere before), and this list currently doesn't meet criteria 3b IMO, as it can reasonably be included as part of the main article.; you could make the main article into a GA...-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) No offense taken, I understand your argument. Just one more statement and I'll let the rest of the review process take place: I understand that this list doesn't meet the "community requirement of 10 items" for a FL, and that consensus on the "10 rule" arose after this list's FLC, but I don't think that it is in clear violation of rule 3b as it is written. I wrote this list because it was a way of improving the band's coverage on WP, although not having to take on the larger task of re-writing the main band's article (though I do hope to do that at some point, though not likely anytime soon). I think the list presents its info in a quality manor, and deleting the list because the band didn't have the trouble that others have had in finding the right lineup, because of no clear failure to meet any FL requirements isn't improving WP. If the consensus is that lists should have 10 items, then state that in the rule. Thanks. blackngold29 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason to delist is based more on whether or not this meets the requirements for stand-alone lists (describe in 3b), and less on the 10-items rule.—Chris!_c/t 02:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which then brings me back to my original question: "Why would this not be grounds to delete all 68 List of band members articles?" I'm not a big fan of having lists that exist, but will never be albe to achieve FL status. I understand it'll happen, but 68 lists? blackngold29 02:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the ones that have less than what the community thinks is the limit for band members lists should be up for WP:AFD. If you look here, you'll see that this is the only band members list that does not satisfy the stand-alone lists rule. I already added what is needed in the main article after the merge, so you're opinion will greatly be appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist clear violation of criterion 3b as described by SRE.K.A.L.—Chris!_c/t 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I don't see much difference between this list and the Dream Theater#Band members section.--Cheetah (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and merge Absolutely no reason to have a separate page just giving the names of the members again. Yes, most of the other band member articles should be merged/deleted due to their lack of content. The little that there is is just a replication of what is easily found on the main article. Reywas92^Talk 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove – The list and timeline have both been incorporated into the main article, and I see no way that the list can pass 3b. It also fails 5b, as alt text is not provided for images. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - echoing Floydian and Blackngold's objections. I agree with Floydian that the place for a discussion of whether a list should be merged is in a merger discussion, and not in FLRC. It does an end run around normal Wikipedia processes. Geraldk (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for failing criterion 3b. Goodraise 02:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as the information it contains could "reasonably be included as part of a related article". Much of it already is, in fact. Merger discussion can take place elsewhere. Bencherlite^Talk 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the Dream Theater article. While there is clearly some good sourced content here I think it would be beneficial to combine it and have an improved overall article on the band. As an aside, I don't think FLs have to go through FLRC before merges though. I believe (Scorpion once alluded to this, but correct me if I'm wrong) that if consensus to merge is established the list can just be merged and it will automatically be delisted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really comes down to semantics and politics. Go with the consensus. Who cares about the formal order of operations besides the wikilawyers? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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