The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails several criteria. I just notices that I supported and even promoted this list back in 2007, but it no longer meets the current standards. The following are glaring weaknesses of the list:
Cheetah (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
Delist at this time because...
The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
|
Update please? What's happening here with the outstanding issues GreatOrangePumpkin? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Looks good so far, is there a reason why the Globe ceremonies aren't linked on every line, just to the winners? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments –
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [2].
I believe the sources are inadequate and that this list no longer means FL standards. Source 1 is outdated and the source for the airdates is linked to a steaming website which I do not believe is reliable. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment what's happening here? There's been no consensus either way registered since the nomination, around three weeks ago. If nothing changes in the next couple of days, this will be close as no consensus to delist. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Comment I've asked the nominator to revisit as concerns over the references appear to have been sorted and Giants' issues on prose etc seem to have been addressed.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
Whoo, missed the party. The airdates are impossible to source, by the way. I've scoured the entirety of the internet. Unless you're going to cite the episodes themselves (is that even allowed?). Alternately, I think Hulu has airdates (different ones than the ones listed) if that's reliable. Will say that I'm not at all interested in maintaining this list though, sorry. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk 05:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, if we can get commitment from Nihonjoe that he'll have the data and add it to the list in the next couple of weeks, I don't see a problem. If this commitment doesn't materialise, or if we can't find a mutually acceptable solution, we'll need to close this out as delisted. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Update please, it's now mid-June. If we don't get the requested sourced material, we'll have no much choice other than to delist which would be a real shame. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [5].
I anticipate this to be a problematic candidate but here are the issues I found:
Nergaal ( talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
While I disagree that this list lacks the qualities necessary to be a Featured list I think some of your comments have some merit and I will work to improve the list over the next couple days. I do disagree that its OR. There are references for each of the individuals that identify them as being Jewish and I will try and incorporate them. I will also try to make the sections flow a little better as is the case of some of the other recipient lists. I partially disagree about the comments relating to the race and ethnicity. There has been quite a lot of documentation regarding persecution and prejudice towards Jews and regardless of whether its a racial issue or not I think the separation into its own list is fair. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor=
(
help)Can I get an update on this nomination please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - rightyho, been another couple of weeks, no further feedback from Nergaal or Kumioko. If I hear nothing in the next day or so, I'll close this as no consensus to demote (i.e. keep). The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
Delist – I'd like to see some more work on this list before the FLRC closes. There are a few issues that should at least be looked at, the one tag in particular. I'm very uncomfortable letting a list with a tag keep FL status.
|
delist
Sandman888 ( talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - as Kumioko is still working on this, I'm prepared to keep the nomination going a little longer. Please, if you can help, do help. Cheers all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
It doesn't look like that much work has been done on the list in the last couple of weeks. Given that this has been at FLRC for almost two months now, we need to see some progress soon or this will have to be closed. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Aside from personal feelings and concerns about the a race/religion associated list and aside from the fact that I still have not been able to get the actual studies (I'm still working on it) I think I have addressed all the concerns identified above. The list has been massively rewritten even locating references with recipients that weren't there before and have now been added. Comparing the Current version to the version before we started here I feel like we have improved the article/list to the point were it can maintain its FL status. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:14, 8 June 2011 [7].
This list was promoted in July 2008, well before 3b was made part of the FL criteria. As almost all of the list's contents can be found at List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, I believe this violates that criterion. A similar page, List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was rejected recently at FLC for the same reason. It's a shame in some ways since the list itself is in reasonable shape, but old FLs shouldn't get a free pass when standards change. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't see a major issue here. The Packers article is huge and really could use shortening. The only thing I would prefer to see is more in the lead about the players, and less about the Packers' franchise. Then it's just technical issues (if any, perhaps check ref 12 for dead-ness) to worry about, I've already done the dashes...! The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails several criteria. I just notices that I supported and even promoted this list back in 2007, but it no longer meets the current standards. The following are glaring weaknesses of the list:
Cheetah (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
Delist at this time because...
The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
|
Update please? What's happening here with the outstanding issues GreatOrangePumpkin? The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Looks good so far, is there a reason why the Globe ceremonies aren't linked on every line, just to the winners? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments –
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [2].
I believe the sources are inadequate and that this list no longer means FL standards. Source 1 is outdated and the source for the airdates is linked to a steaming website which I do not believe is reliable. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment what's happening here? There's been no consensus either way registered since the nomination, around three weeks ago. If nothing changes in the next couple of days, this will be close as no consensus to delist. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 19:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Comment I've asked the nominator to revisit as concerns over the references appear to have been sorted and Giants' issues on prose etc seem to have been addressed.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
14:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
reply
Whoo, missed the party. The airdates are impossible to source, by the way. I've scoured the entirety of the internet. Unless you're going to cite the episodes themselves (is that even allowed?). Alternately, I think Hulu has airdates (different ones than the ones listed) if that's reliable. Will say that I'm not at all interested in maintaining this list though, sorry. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk 05:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, if we can get commitment from Nihonjoe that he'll have the data and add it to the list in the next couple of weeks, I don't see a problem. If this commitment doesn't materialise, or if we can't find a mutually acceptable solution, we'll need to close this out as delisted. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Update please, it's now mid-June. If we don't get the requested sourced material, we'll have no much choice other than to delist which would be a real shame. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [5].
I anticipate this to be a problematic candidate but here are the issues I found:
Nergaal ( talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
While I disagree that this list lacks the qualities necessary to be a Featured list I think some of your comments have some merit and I will work to improve the list over the next couple days. I do disagree that its OR. There are references for each of the individuals that identify them as being Jewish and I will try and incorporate them. I will also try to make the sections flow a little better as is the case of some of the other recipient lists. I partially disagree about the comments relating to the race and ethnicity. There has been quite a lot of documentation regarding persecution and prejudice towards Jews and regardless of whether its a racial issue or not I think the separation into its own list is fair. -- Kumioko ( talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor=
(
help){{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor=
(
help)Can I get an update on this nomination please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - rightyho, been another couple of weeks, no further feedback from Nergaal or Kumioko. If I hear nothing in the next day or so, I'll close this as no consensus to demote (i.e. keep). The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC) reply |
---|
Delist – I'd like to see some more work on this list before the FLRC closes. There are a few issues that should at least be looked at, the one tag in particular. I'm very uncomfortable letting a list with a tag keep FL status.
|
delist
Sandman888 ( talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment - as Kumioko is still working on this, I'm prepared to keep the nomination going a little longer. Please, if you can help, do help. Cheers all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) reply
AustralianRupert ( talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
It doesn't look like that much work has been done on the list in the last couple of weeks. Given that this has been at FLRC for almost two months now, we need to see some progress soon or this will have to be closed. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Aside from personal feelings and concerns about the a race/religion associated list and aside from the fact that I still have not been able to get the actual studies (I'm still working on it) I think I have addressed all the concerns identified above. The list has been massively rewritten even locating references with recipients that weren't there before and have now been added. Comparing the Current version to the version before we started here I feel like we have improved the article/list to the point were it can maintain its FL status. -- Kumioko ( talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 23:14, 8 June 2011 [7].
This list was promoted in July 2008, well before 3b was made part of the FL criteria. As almost all of the list's contents can be found at List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, I believe this violates that criterion. A similar page, List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was rejected recently at FLC for the same reason. It's a shame in some ways since the list itself is in reasonable shape, but old FLs shouldn't get a free pass when standards change. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't see a major issue here. The Packers article is huge and really could use shortening. The only thing I would prefer to see is more in the lead about the players, and less about the Packers' franchise. Then it's just technical issues (if any, perhaps check ref 12 for dead-ness) to worry about, I've already done the dashes...! The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC) reply