The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 retained by SchroCat 20:54, 22 December 2014 [1].

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

Nice list but the criteria from when this was promoted in 2007 changed a lot. The list is complete, it just needs someone to give it a decent intro and body text. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YES, seems to be up-to-date with the latest available technical information afaik atm - also Yes - seems text (esp lead & body) - could be better - improving text *always* welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't any relevant editor or project been notified? Suggest this nomination is closed until it is properly formed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This candidate has been retained. Instructions are clear: interested parties need to be notified. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 18:50, 28 December 2014 [2].

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that this list does not meet our current featured list standards for various reasons, including the fact that the information presented is bloated and split into 3 seperate tables. I also wish to expand the content currently in the article to include names that were retired between 1945 and 2000 and refurbish it into a similar format to the other lists that feature retired names: (Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, Philippine, Australian and Southern Pacific) and feel that i need to post here as i do so. I also feel that the article name will also need changing back to List of retired Pacific typhoon names if we are too include the JTWC era names. Jason Rees (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're planning on changing the format, you should just do so, and *then* do an FLRC to make sure it still complies. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This candidate has been withdrawn. As per the above, this isn't asuitable candidate for delisting: if you'd like to bring it back after you've updated it, it can be reviewed against the criteria at that point. - SchroCat (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 delisted by Crisco 1492 16:33, 12 December 2014 [3].

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Comedy

I am nominating this for featured list removal because a mere six inline citations is not even close to enough for FL standards. I don't know how this happened, but the edition that passed in July 2008 had only one inline citation. The opening sentence for the lead is also unnecessarily long. Not all of his occupations need to be listed. Is "award-winning" really needed? In any case, this needs substantial work to meet requirements for featured content. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist This filmography needs extensive work to meet the current Featured List requirements.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Similar to the Christopher Walken one, needs lots of references. Lead needs to be rewritten. Table needs to be restructured. Does not meet current FL criteria. Cowlibob (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Similar to my statement in the Walken one as well. The list seems to meet the necessary requirements in my eye. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It most certainly does NOT. Nearly all of the roles are missing inline citations. Absolutely unacceptable for FL standards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It most certainly does. As it you have noted, it passed earlier with only one inline citation. Your notion that the actor can't be credited with a role in the movie unless there is a secondary source is absurd. The citations are not necessary unless there is an issue of verifiability. There is no issue of verifiability of Woody Allen being the director of Annie Hall. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The FL criteria was less demanding at the time this was promoted. While secondary sources are ideal, inline citations of some sort are a necessity. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Inline citations are only a necessity when they deal with something that requires an inline citation WP:MINREF. The first three are attached to issues of verifiability (Direct quotations, a statement that has been challenged, or statements that are likely to be challenged). The last applies to contentious material about a BLP. I do not see where any of the statements about the roles Allen has had in a specific film fall under any of those categories, and even if they did (which I feel they don't), they can be verified by obtaining the credits of the film itself. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MINREF is not a policy or guideline while WP:V and WP:NOR are both policies. The policies exist for a reason, so they should be put to use. Using film credits as citations would be one thing, but not even those are being used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Director Woody Allen of Film X satisfies the question of verifiability. If that statement is suspect, just look to the credits of Film X to see if he was credited as being a director of it. You made it an issue of inline citations at first, I point out when inline citations are used, then you back away from inline citations and vaguely refer to WP:V and WP:NOR. I fail to see where WP:NOR comes into play here, no original research has been done or pointed out. It is not Original Research to use the Credits provided by the film itself as to who played what role in the production of that film, that is using it as a source to provide factual verification. If he isn't credited with it there, then most definitely other reliable sources must be identified. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that there are not enough inline citations. All content must be (reliably) sourced for FL's. As I said, one could use film credits as a source, but so far that hasn't been included in the article. Content is not verifiable without citations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I already pointed out that all the information here is verifiable by the content on the page. No original research required or present, the content is verifiable without inline citations. There is nothing wrong with the article. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is actually a whole lot wrong with this article in its current state. Lead and tables also need restructuring. Wikipedia articles themselves are good not enough references as those can potentially have unsourced/poorly sourced information.

• No where did I write or suggest that a wikipedia article itself could be sourced. I did suggest that if the article says Woody Allen is the director of Annie Hall. The best place to verify this would be the credits of Annie Hall. All that has been demonstrated here is no one knows what the word "Verifiable" means. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. There just are not enough inline citations (6 to cover a career isn't enough). Xcuref1endx, you need to listen to what Snuggums and others are saying here. Even if we do allow the films to act as the source (we don't), the Rancid Tomatoes info, gross of each film, the shorts and television information, and most af the lead are all unsourced. That's just not good enough for an FL. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense. Obviously, seeing the credits of a film provides us with no verification of whether the individual had any involvement with the film. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist – The entire lead contains just one ref. Doesn't seem to meet the primary requirements of WP:WIAFL. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This candidate has been demoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 delisted by SchroCat 19:00, 28 December 2014 [4].

Notified: Orlady, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Tennessee

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... it is no longer one of Wikipedia's best:

• Dead links

• Bolding of "incorporated municipalities in the state of Tennessee" violates WP:BOLDTITLE

• The table is lacks appropriate "! scope="col"" and "! scope="row"" tags; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for more information and requirements

• The census and land data need to be updated from the 2010 census

• The population comparison should be updated/removed; 2000 is out of date

• I don't see a need for the background colors

• Ref 10 needs proper citation

• The lead should be more descriptive of "municipalities in Tennessee", including the first municipality incorporated, a summary of the "Municipal charters" section, the most populous v. least populous municipality, etc; see List of cities and towns in California as an example.

• The "As of 2007, 212 of the state's municipalities were operating under charters established ..." is seven years out of date

• The caption requires a reference

• The color indication of the "County seat" requires a text indicator, or a {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}, or something of the like

• The "disincorporated" municipalities have no explanation in the text

• Note "A" needs a reference

• Reference 9 looks more like a note

• Citations with page ranges need ndashs; references in general could be better organized by following the appropriate citation templates

• The "Municipal charters" section is rather disjointed and could use a reorganization, and explanation of how the various forms of municipal charters differ in terms of administration and application

Not one of Wikipedia's best. Seattle (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've updated with 2010 census data. There are still some issues that need to be addressed. Bms4880 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I share some of the concerns listed above that have not yet been met. Also I feel that this list could use a map of both Tennessee's position in the USA (see: List of cities and towns in California), and a map of municipal boundaries, something like List of municipalities in Ontario. It would be nice to have three more columns: 2000 population, population change, and population density. I would also add images of the largest cities and towns like those in the California article. This would be my ideal list of changes. If some can be met I will strike out my delist. Mattximus (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This candidate has been delisted. – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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