Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of popes (graphical)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
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 15:11, 2 July 2010 [1].

List of popes (graphical) edit

List of popes (graphical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Dominic, WP Catholicism, WP Vatican City

I am nominating this for featured list removal because this was promoted five years ago this month, and the standards for FL's are quite a bit different than they were back then. At present, my main concern is 3b- that these graphs do not meet the standards of a stand-alone article. There's also some issues with criteria 2 and the referencing, as the lede is very short, and the references are minimal, but both of those could easily be resolved with a few hours work. In my opinion, this list's status as a FL turns on 3B, and my opinion is that it doesn't qualify. Courcelles (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove and could probably be taken to AfD aswell. We recently had another list with similar problems which is on its way to deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I can see the list is very useful and informative, setting out detailied and often confusing encyclopedic information in an ordered yet visual way. This is the sort of list that in my view is presentationally ideal for an encyclopedia, combining clarity with ease of linking to other articles. As has been said, the information is referenced and is not in dispute. Whether or not it stands alone is a little in the eye of the beholder. Xandar 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this list meets all the criteria in Featured list criteria and Stand-alone lists. Is the objection that the information on the list duplicates what's found in List of Popes? That's true of the names and dates, but the graphical presentation is useful and unique to this list. A name change to something like "Timeline of Popes" might highlight the list's contribution. --Meyer (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That means that many lists can now by duplicated by the nifty timeline tool. I'm not convinced it's such a great contribution, to duplicate information, as to merit the distinction of being featured. Sandman888 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unless several practical details are attended to... to whit:
  • Don't start lists with "This is a list of..." any more.
  • Use unspaced en-dashes in year ranges (see WP:DASH for more).
  • "depending on whether a source counts Stephen II." not referenced, and pretty important. And poorly worded.
  • The image of the list doesn't have the last and current pope on it, worth a note.
  • Far too many see alsos. Not convinced at all we need this to link out to "sexually active" popes... And do you really want a link to Template:Popes?!!
  • You have three general refs, none of which could possibly cover the last and the current pope.
Not entirely convinced this is even necessary - all the information in this list is covered (in more detail) in List of popes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist
  • Completely unreferenced lead.
  • I presume the three books under references are supposed to be 'general references'. However, they lack any page numbers, so it is impossible to recreate this list without skimming through three entire books. Also, there is no ISBN numbers, making them difficult to locate.
  • The lead is poorly written and starts with 'this is graphical list of...'
  • There is no explanation at all as to what an antipope is, or why the reign concurrently with other popes.
  • Lack of a legend can make it difficult for some people with color blindness to understand which is a pope and an antipope.
  • The list is completely redundant in information to List of popes.
  • Supreme Pontiff redirect to a disambig page.
  • The see also section is a mess and even has a template listed.

Arsenikk (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_popes_(graphical)/archive1&oldid=1138490242"