Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2010

Kept

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 14:58, 18 June 2010 [1].

---

List of Nintendo 64 games

Notified: SeizureDog, WikiProject Video games, Nintendo Task force

Though I'm new to reviewing Featured Lists, I'm nominating List of N64 games die to lack of citations in the list. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version

Keep Sandman888 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Number of players" - doesn't sort properly. See {{sort}} for how to, ie. {{sort|1|1-4}} and {{sort|0|1}}
• ESRB/ELSPA rating shd be explained in key
• lead is very heavy on the tech, cd focus more on the social aspect of gaming.

Keep Wow everything's changed, the discussion has started over. Thanks for the sort tag "Sandman888", they work great. I've been thinking about adding those other things, but it seems like when I come up with things like "the addition of four ports to the N64 allowed for more social and community playability, while the NES and SNES required special adapters to play four player games", and such it gets a little more tech, and how to word such things and find at least one reference to support that view, according to one source it was to help keep the cost down for the player, so players would be buying games instead of add-ons. I've been trying to find a Official PAL Nintendo list of games, but so far haven't had any luck and wrote to Nintendo.co.uk to see if they had ever posted one, their site seems to possibly have had one but it may have been removed, and Internet Archive doesn't seem to have any links for their site at all. Hopefully in a few more days we'll find out if there is such a list. Will check back again on Wednesday. (Floppydog66 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Summary: I think the only remaining source still questioned is this one [2] by Thiago Simoes. It was one of two lists that was originally used to source this page when it got it's 'Featured List' status, [3], link to 'List of' at the time it was given 'Featured List' status. It is the only list that combines all the lists into one international list, and it's the only reference that covers the 'Developer' column (which was also present when it was given it's 'Featured list'. The reason that was given was for wanting it removed was that it can be seen as user generated. But if it was published on another site like IGN or such sites, or even a newspaper column, it might be considered news since the author gives his sources in section "5.0 - Credits", 'Thanks to', and tells the sort of fact checking he did, which isn't present in the other source lists.

Options: I see a few options for this GameFAQs list.

• (1) We can either keep or remove the list by Thiago Simoes, but this would also mean there would be no source for the Developer column and probably should be removed also.
• (2) We use this for the developer column (a) [4] a list of PAL games by a company that has been interviewed on BBC, written articles for magazines and other such things, it's more of a price list for their store and I think it'd be better to use (b) [5] PAL N64 checklist list, in PDF but it doesn't mention developer or anything else, and would mainly be used for the PAL part of the "Region" column. Using (2a) would let us keep the Developer column if we removed (1.), but (2b) without list (1) would mean that the 'Developer' column would become unsourced. While keeping (1) would keep the list as is, and either (2a) or (2b) could be used.

I also wondered if it'd be easier for people to understand the list if we moved most of the 'See also" section's "Video game publisher" type links to the head of the columns as "{Video game publisher|Publisher}" which would help explain the columns better. Rather then having it at the bottom of the page, in the Key section, or being mentioned in the introduction summary to the list. I still haven't heard about a Official PAL list of games yet from Nintendo.uk, they said they were forwarding my question to Nintendo Europe, so hopefully I'll know by Saturday, I'll check back again then. (Floppydog66 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC))

Ok, I think I've addressed all concerns so far and removed the list by Thiago Simoes, and used Nintendo Official Magazine (NOM) for PAL game sources, since I still haven't heard back from Nintendo Europe, but NOM gives the same information. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Now that the source I was primarily concerned about has been removed, I won't be in the delist column. However, I have read the entire list this time and have come up with the following thoughts: Why is carts in italics in the second sentence? "but a few games require an additional boot code before the game can be played." Little repetition in the writing here concerning "game" and "game". Try "before they can be played." Remove the comma in the first sentence of the third paragraph, as there is nothing following it except the parenthetical bit. "It is arranged with the different titles being listed once for each program that it contains, the various titles...". I'm thinking the comma should be a semi-colon here. "All English titles are listed first, with an alternate title listed afterward, direct translations of English titles are not used." Same here for the second comma. In the photo by the key, I recommend parentheses around this part of the caption: "the system's best selling game". In the table headings, there are a few instances of references being out of numerical order. It is usually better for them to be in order. What are the Notes? Are they meant to be references citing the entire table? If so, they could just be presented as general references, and the citations as specific references. Many FLs use that system. One more source reliability question: Who is behind Game Classification.com? (reference 14) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the suggestions, I think I incorperated all of them. My internet connection went down and I have to use the public library to log in and edit so I have only a certain time limit I can edit. The people behind Game Classification seem to have written a number of publications and research with Universities, like the French Toulouse, [6] and [7]. (Floppydog66 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Comment from KV5

The only concern that I have with this list at the moment is the fact that it's wider than is accessible on standard-width monitors. I am currently using an 1152x864 resolution and it's too wide for my screen; I can't imagine what it looks like on 1024x768. I might suggest making some of the table headers less wide by abbreviating them and moving the full header name, along with the references, into a key. For example, "Publisher" could be shortened to "Pub", and the references moved into a key with an explanatory row. This would alleviate a lot of my concern. The columns with many refs in the headers that could be shortened include "Regions released", "Publisher", and "Year first released". — KV5 • Talk • 15:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried the tables on my computer with a resolution as low as 800 x 600 which cause the reader to use the lower slide bar, but every size above that no matter how wide the screen the tables are set up to fit 100%, it sounds like you might be having your pages zoomed in or be seeing extra large text, if you have Internet Explorer text size should be medium 100%, I think most Wikipedia pages are set up that way. (Floppydog66 (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm using Google Chrome, and I don't have any text size changes enabled. I've also checked it in MSIE and Firefox. I'm not viewing the text at any larger resolution than normal. Regardless, featured content should be accessible, preferably without horizontal scrolling, at the most common browser resolution, which is 1024x768, and on all browsers. So it should still be fixed. — KV5 • Talk • 11:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason the width size was set at 105% instead of 100%. Now it shouldn't have a horizontal slider at the bottom of the page, even if it is shrank down by 'restore down' and compacting the window to where it will get to things like

• Publish
  
• er(1)(2)
  

and such, so no matter how small the page is the size of the tables is 100%, the words just get split into smaller and smaller sections. But I'm not sure how 100% view would work on systems other then Windows and Internet Explorer. As Far as I know 100% is the standard for all Wikipedia Articles, but in some browsers the 'Wikipedia logo, Main page, Contents, Current events, Random article', column might take up some of the 100% and we'd only need to know how much space it used in these type browsers. Do you still see a horizontal slider on your browser? (Floppydog66 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

It still does have a scroll bar, yes. I believe there used to be an essay or page explaining that 100% fixed table widths actually caused problems, but I can't seem to locate it at the moment. I've seen in mentioned in 1 or 2 FLCs before. Perhaps a 99% fixed width instead of 100% would solve the problem. — KV5 • Talk • 11:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeap that's what I needed to know, Thanks. I was able to find the article, it is Wikipedia:98 percent table width anomaly and is fixed by "width:99%; margin-right:0", but I set it to 98% so hopefully if someone wants to change it they'll ask why it was set at 98%, or someone else will be able to look up the page about the error a bit easier. (Floppydog66 (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately, that still didn't do it. Perhaps putting the references under the header names with a line break might help to make some of those columns less clunky. — KV5 • Talk • 17:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep My concerns have been addressed. Although the width is a concern, I assume that it is not a problem for other users, and don't think it should be a deal-breaker in determining whether this should be kept as FL or not. Nice work. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb87, and Giants2008, I couldn't have done it without you. I changed the table headings so the ref's are below, but there shouldn't be a horizontal slider, the headers should shrink down to fit the tables like this;

• Publish
  
• er(1)(2)
  

or now like this

• Publ
• isher
• (1)(2)

unless there's some other unknown error. It's hard to say since I don't see it, even at previous 105% and the libraries computer at 1024x768 the tables fit the screen. My home computer is Wide screen so I returned to the library to see if I could see it, but I still don't see a horizontal slider. Can you screen capture the page by using the 'Print Screen/System Request' button and upload the image, then link to it as Table_Sample1? And what type system are you using, Windows?(Floppydog66 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC))

The changes worked beautifully. Cheers. I say keep. — KV5 • Talk • 19:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that it's working so well for everyone, including you 'KV5'. Well I hope that's about it, I wonder if I get to contribute the final words? The list has come a long way since it was originally begun by 'LGagon' back in February 24th, 2004. Then it had only eleven games and was a bulleted list [8] after more then 6 years of existence, I think it's finally earned the "Feature List" status, that 'Timkovski' and 'SeizureDog' tried hard to get it towards. When receiving it's original "Featured list" status, it only had two general references and two notes about cancelled games, [9] and now after well over 1000 edits since it's inception, I'm proud of it, and amazed by the way it's grown into being one of the best articles for informing readers about these video games. Or as someone else once said;

"Once again, nature has surprised us beyond our wildest imagination." —Hubblecast.
(Floppydog66 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC))

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 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 19:43, 3 June 2010 [10].

---

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University

Notified: User_talk:Sephiroth_BCR, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes

I am nominating this for featured list removal because during a discussion here there was broad consensus that subcategories should be notable per se, which this list seem to fail. Sandman888 (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to look at the existing criteria, specifically "3(b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." The argument could be made, for example, that a list of nobel laureates by university fails 3(b) because it could reasonably included as part of a list of alumni / faculty for that university, as well as (obviously) the existing lists of nobel laureates. I wonder whether a new rule is necessary. Bencherlite^Talk 20:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a clarification of the implications of WP:N / 3.b explicitly stating that subcategories should meet certain requirements, I believe, would help a lot since it's open for interpretation. But I think general arguments should be kept at one place, so I've c&p above into the FLC talk. Hope you don't mind. Sandman888 (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think this is the wrong forum for discussion. This is a notability issue. Either it is notable and therefore is of featured quality, or it isn't and should be deleted (AfD). The quality of the list is regardless at AfD if the reasoning for deletion (lack of notability) reaches consensus. By the way there is not problem in directly deleting a featured list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections if you want to go to AfD with this one. Sandman888 (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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