Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Washington Metro stations/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 Giants2008 20:08, 2 April 2011.

List of Washington Metro stations

 * Notified: WikiProject Washington Metro

I am nominating this for featured list removal because a decent portion of the article's information is outdated, and some content is either redundant or lacks a reliable source. Posts were made on the talk pages of both the list and the respective WikiProject with input from only one user; no edits to the list have been made since I posted my concerns.

The average weekday ridership in the main station list is from 2009, while the ridership in the "top stations" sections is from either 2008 or 2006 (therefore outdated). The "top stations" lists are also redundant because the stations with the highest ridership can easily be determined by sorting the main column. The station codes also do not seem necessary for this article, as they are only used internally by WMATA and appeared to be unnotable for inclusion in this list. Additionally, the source for the station codes for the Silver Line station is unreliable and no reliable source can be found. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Please note that the 2010 station figures have not come out yet, so the article is still using the most recent figures. If someone finds the official figures, I would appreciate a link here. I agree that the list of busiest stations is unnecessary, and that the by jurisdiction list can also be easily created by sorting the main table twice. I diesagree with the nominator in that the station codes should go because they are "not notable". It is fully credible that a railfan or other specially interested reader would want a list of the internal codes to aid in reading official documents from WMATA, for instance. I agree that the codes for the silver line are from a unreliable source, and I have no idea if reliable sources are available, so that at current they should go. I don't see any reason to add an update banner to the article at this point of time. As a postscript, note that the original nominator of the FLC has retired. I am therefore going to be bold and edit the article in those points where I agree with Dream out loud. Arsenikk (talk)  10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The table that was just removed listed the list of highest ridership stations in each jurisdiction. This could not easily be determined by sorting the other table. The article is hurt by the deletions advocated by Dream out loud. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is still outdated information in the article. Any ridership information older than 2009 needs to be updated (ie: lead, "Lines" section).  The station codes would definitely be interesting to a railfan, but this is an encyclopedia, not a railfan site, so the station codes are unnecessary. – Dream out loud  (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dream Out Loud-- I'm from Washington and I've looked at this list before, and all the rail codes did was confuse me. We need to look at this list from the point of view of a layman. Nomader  ( Talk ) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments could easily be saved in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressing some of the above:
 * Station codes are fine as long as they're footnoted that these are general public station codes, if that's the case. In the UK we have station codes, no-one uses them, but they're valid nonetheless.
 * The "top ridership" table didn't (in my opinion) repeat anything verbatim so should be restored.
 * Ridership figures should be updated to the most recent available source, no matter what.
 * My own comments:
 * Image caption does not need a full stop.
 * Seems like ref 1 has been tagged as a {dead link} - this may not be true, H3llbot seems to have made a few mistakes if, indeed, it was "it" that tagged it... check it please.
 * There are a couple of "As of..." in the lead (2009 and 2008 respectively) which could be updated if possible.
 * And an "as of 2006" which really needs to be updated.
 * Lines section is "as of 2009", if the silver line isn't constructed yet, perhaps update the As of date here too.
 * Look into using our new ACCESS-friendly dagger instead of the simple dagger.
 * Don't have a linebreak between text and the reference in the table headings.


 * Delist It's going to be a month now and no issues stated above were addressed.-- Cheetah  (talk)  17:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe I may have found sources that could possibly be used to update the list: Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.