Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing Featured lists in Wikipedia

This page is for the review and improvement of Wikipedia:Featured lists that may no longer meet the Featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards regardless of when it was 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 on Wikipedia: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 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 urgently needing reviews


The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Lists nominated for removal

List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture

I am not actually nominating this list for removal but instead for a reassessment, and I hope this nomination ends with a "Keep" consensus. Since its promotion to a featured status, this page had changed substantially and was in a sorry state. I updated it, removed unsourced statements, introduced a clickable skyline image, and changed its structure per my standardization efforts. I'm looking for comments on those changes, and I hope the list's featured status will be affirmed. If this is not the place to seek help in such cases like this one, please feel free to tell me what courses of action I should take in the future – for example updating the article after nominating it for featured list removal or mass removing lists in a similar state and then nominating them for a featured status. Sandvich18 (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsguy17
  • For the "Tallest Under Construction" section, it would be nice to add a source for each of the other three buildings under construction.
It wasn't me who added these buildings, and I couldn't find a source for Multnomah County Courthouse's height (the other two buildings are under 250 feet so they shouldn't be in the table anyway), so I removed them. Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to add a "Tallest approved or proposed" section? Some other tallest building FLs contain this, albeit it is not required.
I believe such a section is against WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, and I remove it from the lists I work on. Most of the proposed or approved buildings are never built and keeping each list up-to-date would be significantly more difficult were they to be included in the article. Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Optional) Include a section breaking down the tallest building in each neighborhood of the city of Portland.
That's a neat idea, I'll try to implement it. Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hope these suggestions help out. Beyond that, I think the list looks good. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! :) Sandvich18 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, Sandvich18! I too hope that these articles can retain FL status. You did a very good job making the necessary changes before coming here. On my second comment, I partly agree to disagree on this one. If the information is verifiable, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL necessarily applies, albeit I do not believe that it adds much, so I'm not opposed to excluding that bit from the article. Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just added a section listing tallest buildings in Portland by district. Sandvich18 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • With the changes made, I think this article is a pretty obvious Keep. Sportsguy17 (TC) 17:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Houston

Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Architecture

I am not actually nominating this list for removal but instead for a reassessment, and I hope this nomination ends with a "Keep" consensus. Since its promotion to a featured status, this page had changed substantially and was in a very sorry state. I updated it, removed unsourced statements, introduced a clickable skyline image, and changed its structure per my standardization efforts. I'm looking for comments on those changes, and I hope the list's featured status will be affirmed. If this is not the place to seek help in such cases like this one, please feel free to tell me what courses of action I should take in the future – for example updating the article after nominating it for featured list removal or mass removing lists in a similar state and then nominating them for a featured status. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsguy17

My comments that I made at the Portland, Oregon one apply here as well. Sportsguy17 (TC) 20:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Notified: RGloucester, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Regrettably, I no longer believe that the list of British prime ministers can be held to such a high standard for much longer. When the list was first nominated for removal as a featured list eight years ago, the page looked rather radically different (and in my view, a much finer sight to see than the present revision that I take issue with). Indeed I have edited the article frequently over the past year or so, but the thing that has continued to bug me for quite some time are the cells within the table listing the policies and achievements of individual prime ministers. It's a largely subjective part of the table, rather cumbersome and pretty unpleasant to look at. Until that issue is reviewed, I honestly think that continuing to include this list among Wikipedia's best works is preposterous.--Nevéselbert 19:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why you're bringing it to FLC, given that you seem to be the primary editor nowadays on it? Why not just have a talk page discussion, or boldly remove them yourselves? I'm not seeing any such discussions on the talk page, or attempts in the history. I personally like them and think they add some interesting context assuming they're sourced, though the modern PMs get a little out of hand on length, but I can understand disliking the subjectivity involved in picking the comments. --PresN 01:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I can see why this was nominated. Those long "notes" section are unreferenced and do feel kinda random. They are interesting though. The strange structure of the table does make it rather confusing to read, I wasn't sure that clicking on the date under the dates linked you to the election. Little things like Blair has 3 ministries in one link, but May has 2 ministries in 2 links, seem to be everywhere. I'm on the fence about this one. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes I am the primary editor, that is correct. And I have tried my hardest to improve the article without being too radical, as I hear that it's rather taboo on Wikipedia to dramatically overhaul a featured article without a broad consensus. So coming here and having the article examined for its worth before going about attempting to gauge consensus seemed to me like a rather sensible strategy. I should note that the article is rather stagnant nowadays if you forgive my edits, and considering the fact that the article has changed dramatically since it was elevated to the pantheon of featured articles in 08, I felt it would be more orderly to come here first. Had the article not been a featured one, I probably would have expressed myself on the talkpage. In regards to the notes, I cannot but reiterate that I find them utterly unaesthetic; and as Mattximus has rightly pointed out, they are also pretty random and unsourced. The list of Presidents of the United States has a much cleaner layout in my opinion. To those who want to learn more about the policies and achievements of individual prime ministers, there are plenty of links (e.g. biographies and premiership articles) that should be of help. Regarding the ministries, yes the situation regarding that is slightly complicated and hard to follow if one is unaware of the guide at List of British governments, and there is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Blair ministry as to whether that article should be split into three separate pages.--Nevéselbert 19:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I would just remove the comments cells. They were not there when the article was promoted, and the addition of unsourced comments should be reverted. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I wish I was WP:BOLD enough to do that. Indeed I have been tempted.--Nevéselbert 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead! Dudley Miles (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
It's much easier said than done. The markup is remarkably complicated.--Nevéselbert 21:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
How about asking advice with a {{helpme}} on the talk page? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Eminem discography

Notified: WT:WPMUSIC

  • As indicated in the lede, the Bubbling Under peaks need to be changed from 1xx to "did not peak on the Hot 100, but reached xx on Bubbling Under".
  • Most of the "other charted songs" charts don't appear to have charted. They are also unsourced.
  • "Guest appearances" has multiple unsourced entries.
  • "Music videos" is completely unsourced.

The previous FLRC in 2014 dealt with sourcing issues that appeared to have been taken care of. The article has changed significantly since then. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Delist, I'm not even sure why there is a music videos section in a discography page... but primarily it is the sourcing issues, and I suspect there may be some need to bring it up to date. Mattximus (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Delist, and consider splitting into separate albums and singles discographies. Given how huge Eminem's body of work has become over the years, it'll probably be easier to keep things up to standard if we split his singles and album statistics into separate pages. I've been working on the singles section in one of my sandboxes here, although it's not finished yet by any means - feel free to offer any suggestions. I Am RufusConversation is a beautiful thing. 08:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

List of regicides of Charles I

Notified: WikiProject Biography

This article sadly no longer reflects an article of good standing. Problems include, but are not limited to:

  • Addition of large-scale unsupported information (much of the "Others exempted" section)
  • Terrible formatting on the "Scottish Act of indemnity and oblivion" table (even the title has been poorly done)
  • Inconsistent citations in the notes section
  • Inconsistent citations in the lede

There were problems of WP:OWNership shortly after the list went through its FLC, and I see no point in trying to rescue this from someone who has stated that the featured process "is of little interest to me as I believe the process is broken in many ways". - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but there's also been zero discussion on the talk page to try to resolve this. Now, I'm just as familiar as anyone with the idea of giving up because you know what kind of people you're dealing with, but ... I dunno, it just seems weird to me to recommend a removal without at least token discussion on the front. Could the formatting be cleaned up, the inconsistencies be addressed? Yes. But, on the other hand, those issues pervade the article, not just the new list. I'm not well-enough versed in this to know if the new information is worthy or not, so... a spiritual Agree on my part. At least someone should care. --Golbez (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It's such an interesting list, are you sure that the citations and table cannot be brought back up to standard? Is anyone working on this article? Mattximus (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates&oldid=794029612"
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