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:


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.

Lists nominated for removal

List of National Parks of Canada

Notified: Canada WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are a lot of unsourced things, broken references, old lead style (This is a list of) and awful tables (lack of MOS:ACCESS in colored cells. A column to upload images, is that necessary, what the hell is that?). This article can no loger be a featured list. Yilku1 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The photo upload links seem to have been added as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2017, but I agree they're very out of place in an encyclopedia list and I've removed them. I also replaced (rescued) one ref which seems to have been partly deleted or maybe cut-and-paste overwritten, I'm not sure but it's fixed. I also agree that the use of colour and shading to convey information is a failure of MOS:ACCESS and I'll think about ways the designated sites could be indicated differently. Otherwise I don't think there are any problems here that make the list unsalvageable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I updated the table. Now is a modern onw.
There is really necessary the Notes section? I don't see how they fit in the article and not the the parks respective articles.
All the References are dead or do not support what they are supposed to reference, even with the archived versions, what is the source for the areas for example?. --Yilku1 (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm at the library updating stats on the parks based on a National Geographic source that cites Parks Canada as one of its sources. I've added it as a general reference because I'm not sure exactly that should be cited inline, if at all. I'm out of time, I'll be back to check on the other things probably tomorrow. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
@Yilku1: wondering if you could take another look at this? I'm clearly not done with content yet, but I've added a ref for the parks/reserves area and year of establishment, which I'll also use to update the NMCAs. I have refs in mind for the delisted parks as well. I think I've corrected all of the dead links - most were not dead but Parks Canada changed their site layout a few years ago and everything got messed up. Do you see anything else currently that's missing a reference or where the given reference doesn't support the info? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the notes: I've updated them to the current standard format at least, but I agree that the majority could be eliminated. I'm loosely planning to restate the info currently in notes within the new descriptions that I'm working on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Now it looks better, it needs to rewrite the lead and finish the description column. Because I'm not from Canada i don't know where to look for more info.---Yilku1 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist many of the nominator's points have failed to be addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm working on it; there's a lot I'd like to do but not a lot of time to do it, and it's now a little over two months since being nominated for delisting. I'm not all that familiar with the featured list process, but if it's better to delist this now and resubmit for a new review when it's up to standard, I'm fine with that, especially since there haven't been a lot of comments here and there doesn't seem to be much interest from others in improving the list. I expect what I want to do may take a couple weeks, assuming my schedule holds up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ivanvector: If you think that you can finish most of the work that will be needed in the next couple of weeks, we can absolutely give this FLRC more time to allow for that. A list being improved enough to meet the FL standards is the best possible outcome here, and if that's possible I have no problem with showing some patience. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Tulsa, Oklahoma

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. Sandvich18 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not bad in its current state actually. The only problem I have is that there seems to be a mix of units in the lead, the first cut off is 200 feet, but the second cut off is 150m. Is there a reason those numbers were selected? Mattximus (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
200 ft was chosen arbitrarily, 150 m is the height commonly featured in building statistics on CTBUH's Skyscraper Center (see Tulsa's page for example). Sandvich18 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm this page does need a bit of work. I clicked on the very first link, and it says there are 23 high rises, but the sentence in the text says 25.... Mattximus (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Some high-rises appear only in one database. Three buildings listed in the article can't be found on CTBUH's site. The number in the text should actually be 26 as one building is missing. Sandvich18 (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem, since you quote a number, but that number is not found in any of the sources provided. For better or for worse, wikipedia policy is to conduct no original research, and just report what we find in sources. So I guess we need to find a better source for this number. Mattximus (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It's impossible to do source the number of buildings in the lead in any "List of tallest buildings in ..." article without leaving some buildings out of the list. I believe this insignificant level of original research is appropriate and can only benefit the reader. Sandvich18 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Director note – This has been here for a couple of months now and activity seems to have stalled. The editor who was working on the article hasn't edited in over a month, and the sentence with the OR is still in the first sentence. Does anybody else have any thoughts to help move this along? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak delist the main table fails MOS:ACCESS but seems to have been updated. A shame, it's not quite there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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