Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of English words containing Q not followed by U/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 16:57, 8 November 2010 [1].

List of English words containing Q not followed by U edit

Featured list candidates/List of English words containing Q not followed by U/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of English words containing Q not followed by U/archive1

Notified: WikiProject Glossaries. Most prominent editors retired; also noted User:Dbachmann, who placed the {{primary sources}} tag and raised concerns about article quality on the talk page.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because...

Tagged with {{Primary Sources}} since July.
Several [citation needed]s throughout.
Extremely inapprporiate citation style. The "sources" column uses a bunch of alphabet soup which is then decoded way at the bottom. Why not just use footnotes like a normal list?
"Other forms", "etymology" and "meaning" are all unsourced.
"Uses" section is unsourced.
Link to disambiguation: Qaid.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this nomination. I am not sure that this list belongs in Wikipedia, but I am much more sure that about half of all our featured lists don't belong in Wikipedia. Therefore I don't see the point of targeting this one, which looks quite good and is relatively encyclopedic. I don't understand the purpose of a "Primary Sources" tag on a list. In my opinion there are only two justifications for a list: As a subarticle of another article about a notable topic (as in this case English words with uncommon properties), or by independent notability. I am sure there must be plenty of newspaper fillers about the topic of this list, although for obvious reasons they are not easy to find.

The entries without citation can easily be removed. That should actually have been easier than nominating the list here. The citation style is optimal for a list with this kind of references. In more than half the cases I knew immediately what one of the citations meant without even having to look it up. Standard footnotes would be much less convenient.

"Other forms", "etymology" and "meaning" are not unsourced. It goes without saying that the same dictionaries that list these words also provide this information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy game for bean counters. That said, this style of citation does have the disadvantage that editors may in good faith introduce unsourced claims that will then appear to be sourced. But I see no way around that which isn't clumsy.

The "Uses" section is explicitly sourced to [TWL], the Tournament Word List. Only the last sentence is original synthesis (but obviously correct, at least with the official Scrabble rules as I know them).

In my opinion content like this should never be featured. But the entire Featured Lists process seems to have been set up for editors who want to get with minimal talent and minimal effort to the point where they can claim that they are producing featured content. I think it's generally a better idea to attack the deletion candidates among the featured lists with such a nomination, and not to present a lists stronger points as a reason for delisting. Hans Adler 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entries without citation should be cited, not removed. How would removing entries help our readers?? Also, the list would then no longer meet the FL criteria of being "comprehensive".

Your comments about Featured lists overall value are quite rude, and besides which are in the wrong forum. I suggest you raise those concerns somewhere else, such as Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list has a very clear inclusion criterion which it makes explicit: Words can only be included after they have appeared on their own in one English-language dictionary. Therefore it's not acceptable to add a word just because you think it should appear in English dictionaries. The only way to know that a word belongs on the list is by knowing the reference that proves it. Given this clear criterion, potential new entries that don't have a citation must be collected outside the main list. Since that will be a secondary list consisting entirely of original research, it doesn't belong in article space. I will start a list of potential new entries on the talk page and move the unreferenced entries there. Erroneous entries don't make a list more comprehensive, they make it incorrect and violate WP:FA?, criterion 1c: "[...] Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Amazingly there is nothing equivalent in WP:FL?, but whether this is an innocent oversight or an intentional one, content has no business being featured if it breaks one of Wikipedia's key content policies. Hans Adler 08:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving those items to the talkpage works well. I misunderstood that you meant they should simply be deleted. Sorry, and Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general quality of featured lists is of course very relevant when we decide whether a single list should be featured or not, and truth has an unfortunate inclination to be offensive at times. Hans Adler 08:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing context is all well and good, but you impugned the motives and abilities of (some) editors who work on these items. Nobody has claimed that bringing a list to featured status is equivalent to bringing an article to featured status. They're obviously apples and oranges, and everybody who knows anything about the featured process understands that articles usually take vastly more work (through sheer bulk of prose, if nothing else). That's all I was trying to say. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Link to disambig is now removed. (Unless we want to link to wikt:caid)
I agree with Hans Adler that the citation style works for this section of content. It allows easier reference than plain numbers would. However any additional references (not in the table of words) could use the standard number system.
I've added some potential references in a list at the bottom of the talkpage. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Clearly the maintenance tag has to go/be resolved.
Done.
"naturalised" should be linked first time, not second.
Done.
Not sure why the words are bold in the list.
Done.
Consider making the list sortable.
Not done. This doesn't seem like it would be helpful, as only the first column has any regular structure, and it's already sorted alphabetically.
Why do notes etc have full stops when they're not complete sentences?
Done.
Some redlinked words, some not linked at all. Why?
Done. Either fixed, or directed to wiktionary, or removed.
Uses section is entirely unreferenced.
Added some of the references that I had listed, and rewrote to eliminate the non-static list of words (the acceptable word list changes every 5 years or so). Please rewrite my in-eloquence.
Don't mix date formats in the references section (e.g. Encarta)
Done.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those specific suggestions. I've fixed everything that I could (Marked amongst your bullet points).

I also added the missing item niqab.

The only concern left is the [citation needed] in the final paragraph, which I believe is incorrect as no mention is made in Scrabble letter distributions, and after a brief search the only mentions I could find turned out to be regarding a different game, Scrabble Upwords.

Anything else that needs to be done? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no major outstanding issues beside the [citation needed] tag and the mixture of date formats in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those were fixed, so I assume this can now be closed as keep. Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have asked nom to return to comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with closure as keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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