Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removing featured lists in Wikipedia

This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable.

The FLC director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be kept, consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus to keep has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:

  • has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or
  • contains a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list.

Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period as featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily.

A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is delisted, editors should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating at Featured list candidates.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  • Place {{subst:FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  • From the FLRC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLRC talk page for assistance.
  • Below the preloaded title, write your reason for nominating the list, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Please note which of the featured list criteria that the list fails to meet.
  • Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.
  • Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRCMessage|ArticleName|archive=# of archive page}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|archive=1}}) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured List status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLRC indicating whom you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Nominations for removal

Glee (season 1)

Notified: Frickative, CycloneGu, Glee task force

At over 115KB in size, this article satisfies the criteria of a Featured Article rather than a Featured List. I was puzzled why this was considered to be a "List" in the first place. The content appears to be in good shape, so I'm primarily concern with its status as a Featured "List". Looking forward to comments on this issue, (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep This could easily be a FA, but it meets all the criteria for a FL. More than 50 % of the article are lists. There is no reason to delist.--Lirim | Talk 19:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep can't see any issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Close without FLRC On second thoughts this qualifies as a list more than an article. The quality still satisfies the criteria of a Featured List. I hope moderators can close this without removal of Featured status. Thanks, (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

List of state and union territory capitals in India

Notified: Vensatry, Crzycheetah, Dwaipayanc, WikiProject India

A lot has changed since the FL check in 2012. Entire key table has been removed which was better formatted. Nagpur is entirely missing from the article. Until recently Naya Raipur was being listed as the capital of Chhattisgarh (till I fixed it to Raipur). The notes have all been altered completely. Also, significant developments have happened since then: creation of the new state Telangana; new capitals Naya Raipur, Amravati, Dharamshala.

Keeping all of this in view, the list definitely needs a review on its FL status. Gotitbro (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist This list is a mess. The lead has only two references and is to short. How Gotitbro already said, the list is outdated.—21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist In it's present state, it is a mess. There is a note from the table in the lead for some reason? The dates are a bit strange, because for example, it lists the former capital of Assam to be before the state of Assam was created. If it's a capital of a country before India, then wouldn't it be consistent to do this to other states? Very messy. Mattximus (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delist the lead is very weak but the rest of the article appears to be just about satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – Lead is too short and it has almost no references to back anything up. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

List of heads of government of the Central African Republic

Notified: Nishkid64, WikiProject Africa

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails criteria 2 of the criteria and has not been updated at the same level of previous entries. Tropicanan (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tropicanan: you left the "notifications" section with the examples - did you notify anyone/should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Tropicanan (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist – clearly no longer an FL. It was promoted in 2008 and it shows. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - It may need a copy-edit here and there, but overall, it looks good to me. It doesn't matter what year it was promoted.--Cheetah (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist whoa, almost the entire lead is completely unsourced, this would take quite a bit of effort to bring up to featured standard. Mattximus (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Clear delist referencing and WP:ACCESS problems are obvious at even the quickest of glances. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Agatha Christie bibliography

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer represents out best work. The addition of new sections since it became an FL are unsourced, as is much of the other new material added. SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @SchroCat: Could you please be more specific about the problems you perceive, as I am not seeing them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi Brad, I'm referring to the added "List of short stories" section, which is woefully under referenced (only one ref for part of the text and absolutely none for the story listings themselves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that clarification. I don't perceive that as a serious deficiency in the list, however. Ultimately, the source for the contents of any readily available book is the book itself. While a citation to a secondary work listing all the stories might be worthwhile to add if it can be found, the citations and links to the books themselves should be sufficient, and as the bottom line, I think the page is more useful and more comprehensive with the additional information than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Oh I agree that it’s a possibly/probably better page with the additional information (which is why I didn’t just revert to a prior version). For a featured article we can’t take the book itself: it has to be cited. Without it, it may pass as a normal article, but it just can’t be featured. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Why not? Where is that stated, that a book isn’t an RS for its own table of contents? (As it happens, I once edited a collection of stories by another author, whose contents are widely available but haven’t been indexed elsewhere yet; does that mean that author’s bibliography could never be an FL if the contents of my collection are mentioned?) In any event, if a rule says that a better version of a page cannot be featured but a worse one can, then it is not a sensible rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Focusing on "better" v "worse" is a false dichotomy. The previous version of the page had less information on it, but that information was on a separate page. The project as a whole contained all the same information, so we had two pages with specific purposes. This page contained books and scripts, not short stories. That doesn't make it "worse", it means that the perameters of the page were changed when two 'specialist' pages were combined to one larger page. We now have a section that is inconsistent in the way it deals with the sourcing of the new information. The use of the secondary source is needed to show that there were no previous versions published elsewhere, and (as is often a problem with short story collections) that the actual first edition claimed contained those actual stories, not that a new edition by a secondary publisher has been mistakenly added with changed contents.
As to the sourcing, using an addition to make the claim it's a "first edition", etc, fails as No original research and Verifiability. The book is a primary not secondary source, and we should be using those instead. That's for the information in the tables concerned, and the block of unsupported text obviously needs to have some supporting info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concerns as a theoretical matter, and appreciate the level of thought you've devoted to these issues. But in the context of this specific list I think the sourcing is reasonable, and I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information, so my !vote is to retain the page as an FL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid: "I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information" is not the right standard to have for what is supposed to be our best work (in my opinion), particularly when it makes the level of sourcing for the rest of the article inconsistent. Thanks for your comments either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Actually, hang on, as I may have found a published bibliography we can use to add the sourcing you are looking for. I’m in transit this weekend but should be able to work on it tomorrow night or Monday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That's great news. FLRC is a relatively slow process (for just this very reason), so the co-ords will, I'm sure, hold off for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It took me far longer than I'd anticipated for the book I need to arrive, but it is now here, so I expect to get to this in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That's great. If there is anything you'd like my input from or assistance with, please let me know - I'd be happy to chip in, as and when. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat any update on your feelings here, now we're around two and a half weeks down the road? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi RM, I'm happy to leave this open a little while longer as Brad has the info needed. I wouldn't want to see this delisted then have to go back through FLC a week or so later once the info is added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Okeydokes. We'll leave it another week or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates&oldid=889795271"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA