Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Belize/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 removed by Pres N 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of birds of Belize edit

Featured list removal candidates/List of birds of Belize/archive1

Notified: Yomangani, WikiProject Birds, WikiProject Belize, WikiProject Central America, WikiProject Caribbean

I am nominating this for featured list removal for failing points one two, four, and 5(a) of the featured list criteria:

This is a list of the bird species recorded in Belize. we haven't started lists like this in a while

The following tags have been used to highlight several categories. these would be better placed as notes

The lead doesn't talk about the contents of the article, just notes and the reference from which this list was derived.

This article would be better served with tables under the headings and additional information added about each species

No in-line citations for text blurbs under headings. Seattle (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: Thanks for your notes above. I'm not sure I'm up to rescuing this, but I'm thinking about it. Is there a similar list you could point me to which meets the criteria well and could be used as an example? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle:, @SchreiberBike: several of these old lists are deficient by current standards with vague and inadequate referencing and poor introductions. I hesitate to suggest my own List of birds of Thailand as a model, but it's better than the article at issue. I'd defeature if it's not fixed (I won't do it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike:, @Jimfbleak: Do you think you could combine the different headers into two tables, one for "Non-passerines" and one for "Passerines"? You could span the rows for the column that would represent "Tinamous", "Grebes", etc. and add the information currently below the "Family" and "Order" as notes. I think that would look better and comply with criterion four of the featured list criteria, and bring this list up to standards. It's certainly doable. Seattle (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not experienced with the featured list process, so I'm mostly just thinking aloud here. I'm not sure how that would help with structure and navigation; I find it clear and relatively compact now. The images there now are pretty much only decorations, so maybe they shouldn't be there. In a table, the images would have to be smaller to fit into the row for that bird, though we could probably find an image for most of them. As I understand it, which is poorly, column span and row span would interfere with making the table sortable. I recognize that the descriptive text for each subdivision took a lot of work to write, but since we have links to each order, family and species for the reader to get more information, I'm not sure it is appropriate for a list. When you say to have them as "notes", do you mean like footnotes at the bottom? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: I formatted an example here; the sortability isn't lost with rowspans. I think that the (unreferenced) descriptive text should be lost. We can keep the photos outside of the table for decoration. The emphasis for change here is that we don't have sortability with the current list, and the current list, with its headings, is stilted in terms of readability and transition from one species to another... if nothing else, it's certainly cleaner than the list's current state. Seattle (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching this page now. I'm not wedded to the family introductory text, although it does no harm. I don't think that it's likely that such basic info will be referenced, so if it's being challenged it might as well go. I can't see the point of abandoning the current form and losing content, when all that is gained is dubious sortability. The only logical order for a country list is taxonomic, and if you are looking for a particular specie, well that's why the ToC's there. The IUCN is less relevant than the status within the country; for example Pied-billed Grebe may well be least concern globally, but your mock-up gives no idea of its status in Belize. In the UK it's a very rare vagrant, and just to have the IUCN tag would be highly misleading.

To be honest, the list looks godawful now. The TOC is an eyesore; and if the "description" is lost by a transition to a cleaner table, find a way to re-add it. If the IUCN status is too broad, cut it and find a list specific to Belize. Until then, I support delisting this from featured status. Seattle (talk) 06:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original version gives the status in Belize, admittedly only as accidental or introduced or a blank cell if it's resident or regular. At least that's more helpful than giving the world status. Nevertheless, I'd concur with delisting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Godawful" and "eyesore" don't seem appropriate, but I agree, delist. I'm trying to imagine the purpose of all these bird lists and how they might be used by readers. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 07:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as delist - between the discussion here and at the other bird FLRCs over the past four weeks, it seems clear that these lists are not up to snuff and aren't being fixed. --Pres N 19:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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