Wikipedia

User:Scorpion0422/FL audit

< User:Scorpion0422

I am categorizing these FLs by six types. Please note that I only think the FLs in A, B or F should be delisted. The rest I am noting more for curiosities sake.

It's important to note that these are just the lists in which I see immediate problems. If a page is not listed here, it does not necessarily mean that I think it's perfectly fine (there are a lot of minor issues like small leads, improperly formatted references out there that weren't listed).

Feel free to add any list you think fits in with the types. However, please make sure you add your signature. I would appreciate it if users could avoid commenting on this page until I finish.

Key
  • Type A: FLs that may not be needed. These are lists that were split off from another page for questionable reasons. Neither the main page or the FL are particularily long and some of the FLs have questionable notability.
  • Type B: Lists that recreate the content of another page with a little additional info.
  • Type C: FLs that are more article than list.
  • Type D: FLs that could be merged with another page (but not necessarily delisted).
  • Type E: Very short lists.
  • Type F: Other concerns.

Art and architecture edit

For the most part, the tallest buildings pages are a very well-maintained group of lists. A few minor issues here and there, like improperly formatted refs. I'm still not sure if List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford is notable and does List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon really need to have (Image) in ever row? Why not just incorporate the images into the table? In List of tallest buildings in Seattle, the least clearly states the the Space Needle is not ranked because it is not a building, yet it is included in the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section (I actually brought this up in the FLC and it was fixed, but I guess it's been reverted).

Type F

Media edit

In regards to the episode lists, there seems to be no set standard, almost every one (especially the anime lists) uses a different type of formatting. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just might help if things were more uniform.

Type A


Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
  • List of FLCL episodes - On the short side (six items). It is beefed up by very long plot summaries that would be considered too long in most other lists.
Type F

Music edit

Type A

A question: Does the band actually receive awards for videos? For example, if an artist won an MTV Video award for "Best editing", would the editor not be the one to receive the award and not the artist? So would it not be a mistake to include such awards in the list of awards won by that artist?

Type E
Type F

Transport edit

Type F

Sports and recreation edit

American football edit

I am not going to include all of the "List of [team] first-round draft picks" lists here. I believe they are unnecessary forks, but some of them are long enough to not be Type As.

Type A
Sort of-Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
Type F

Football (soccer) edit

Type D
Type F

Baseball edit

Type A
Type D
Type E

Basketball edit

Type D

Cricket edit

Type F

Ice hockey edit

I'm not going to include them here, but most of the NHL trophy pages could use bigger leads and in some cases the refs need to be properly formatted. (It's worth noting that I did nominate several of them, so if anyone thinks I'm being too easy on them, let me know).

Type D
Type E
Type F
  • It's listed as incomplete because of things like cousins, 2nd cousins, related by marrage...its not possible to keep up with every relation. -Djsasso (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • All of these are on my list of hockey FLs that need upgrading following an audit of my own, and I have been working through fixing them up - about halfway done now. The one exception to my list is list of family relations. I think that template could be removed, as I suspect the potential for incompleteness is alluding to the early century players for whom there may not be reliable family histories available. Resolute 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Motorsport edit

Type F

Professional wrestling edit

Type C
  • Royal Rumble - I see this one as an article that just happens to have a large table in it.
  • WWE No Way Out - Same as above, although there is less prose to this one.
Type F

Misc. edit

Type C
Type F

Video gaming edit

Type C
Type D
Type F

Geography edit

Type F

Places edit

Just a general comment about the lists of counties, some of them need to be brought up to current standards. For example, List of counties in Arizona is of noticeable lesser quality than List of counties in Kentucky.

Type C
Type E
Type F

Military and military history edit

Type F

Royalty, nobility and heraldry edit

Type F

Language and linguistics edit

Type F

Literature and theatre edit

Type A
Type C
Type E
Type F

Biology edit

Type F
  • Most of the bird lists could use more citations. I like the table format used in List of birds of Thailand, it might not hurt to use it in the others.
  • List of cetaceans - There are a number of notes that don't appear to have any citation for them.
  • List of Testudines families - Needs to be brought up to current standards, lack of citations, small lead, etc.

Chemistry and mineralogy edit

Type F

Geology and Geophysics edit

Type D and Type E
Type D

Meteorology edit

Generally a nice group of lists. I'm wondering if some of them, such as List of Connecticut tornadoes, List of Snow events in Florida and List of Delaware hurricanes could be converted into tables.

Physics and astronomy edit

Type F

Religion, mysticism and mythology edit

Type E
Type F

Business, economics and finance edit

Type D
Type F

Culture and society edit

The Lists of gay, lesbian or bisexual people are often showing up in the cleanup listing for questionable sources and unsourced statements. I decided not to include them here, but they should be watched.

Type D
Type F

Education edit

Type D
Type F

Law edit

Type F

Politics and government edit

Type E
Type F

Opinions from other editors edit

Dabomb87's opinions edit

Of course, the brutal irony is that I supported most of these lists' promotion to FL status.

Type A

iMatthew's opinions edit

Type C
  • 2008 WWE Draft - I think since the article is about the Draft, and not who was drafted (the only lists), it should probably be an article.
Not necessarily, see the NFL Draft lists.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Then add the NFL Draft lists here. iMatthew // talk // 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree because all sport drafts revolve around the selections, and it would be redundant to make a List of 2008 NFL Draft selections list. Just because the list may have a bit more prose due to the background does not make it any less than a list. Same thing with the WWE Draft: yes its scripted and fake and whatnot, but it revolves around the selections like other sport drafts.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's an article, not a list. Though this list is just a collection of ideas - not a list of lists that are being removed. iMatthew // talk // 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Royal Rumble - The list is about the events, and unless the article was titled "List of Royal Rumble events", it's about the Royal Rumble, not a list of the events.
  • WWE No Way Out - Same as above

Giants2008's opinions edit

Type A
Type F
  • Milestone home runs by Barry Bonds - How does one define what a "milestone" home run is? I'm not convinced that the page provides a clear enough definition.
  • List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks - I'm worried that this verges on indiscriminate information, and am not convinced that every sports team needs lists of all-time starters at every position. Not saying that would necessarily happen, but one lesson from this situatiion is that slippery slopes should be avoided.
  • Some old sports season pages, particularly those on NFL teams - Outdated and need improvements. Problems with references and lead sections tend to plague these lists

Rambo's Revenge's opinions edit

Type E
Type F

Resolute's opinions edit

On two sports lists:

Type A or F (depending on perspective)
I don't think the first is a type F. Sure, it may not warrant an article, but there is nothing actually wrong with the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would say failing the general notability criteria is a type F. That is just my opinion, however.  ;) Resolute 00:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type A: "FLs that may not be needed. These are lists that were split off from another page for questionable reasons. Neither the main page or the FL are particularily long and some of the FLs have questionable notability." ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I see I am no match for your reading comprehension skills. you win this round... ;) Resolute 05:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about questionable notability here. While these are not the most important baseball lists, WP:WIAFL does not seem to have any additional notability requirements over a regular article. And these lists seem to meet the guidelines of WP:NOTE. And even the statement questioning their notability acknowledges that "there is some very mild notoriety surrounding being the opening day starting pitcher". Right now there are number of news stories (as occurs every year) speculating on who will be the Opening Day starter for team X, or whether player Y (Cole Hamels is player Y today) will be able to make the Opening Day start, so the Opening Day starter gets ongoing attention, in addition to the sources for the historical starters. Rlendog (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai's Opinion edit

I'll stick to what I'm pretty sure of.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Scorpion0422/FL_audit&oldid=1142403373"