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. Sephiroth BCR and The Rambling Man are delegates who act as FLR directors and 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. GimmeBot 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. Nominations will be removed on Tuesdays and Saturdays, just before User:GimmeBot's scheduled run at 00:00 UTC Wednesday and Sunday mornings. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – #wikipedia-en-FL	Shortcut: WP:FLRC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox Dead links FL Cleanup listing FL Cleanup task force Article statistics
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|alt=FLRC subpage}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|alt=List of Presidents of the United States/archive1}}) 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.

[edit] Lists nominated for removal

[edit] List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple

Notified: Another Believer, WikiProject Alternative music

The 3b criteria strikes again! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b; the list could easily be conflated into one table and merged into the main article. The "other recognitions" section is a nice addition, but isn't enough to keep this separate, I'm afraid. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards

Notified: WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Awards and prizes, Rambo's Revenge

I am nominating this for featured list review (removal hopefully not necessary) because this list was recently merged with BBC Sports Personality of the Year (latter into former), meaning that the content of the list has changed a lot. Hopefully by listing this here for featured list review, we can ensure that it is of the high quality required by the featured list criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was awaiting a consensus for the name before submitting this here (so I didn't have to move FLRC pages etc.) But seeing as there wasn't any consensus building I'm happy for opinions on the name to be here as well. I might as well provide a breif history while I'm here. The list BBC Sports Personality of the Year old id was promoted to FL. I was improving BBC Sports Personality of the Year old id as it was the last in a SPoTY topic I've been working on. I was preparing for GA and having the article peer reviewed when Oldelpaso suggested a merge. Discussion followed, consensus for a merge formed here, and I performed the merge. The page I merged into this list will be moved somewhere or turned into a redirect (to preserve GFDL). This is why currently the list has a merge in process tag on, because currently it is a WP:CFORK and I wanted to make sure people know that this won't be the case for long. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998

Notified: WikiProject Record Charts, primary contributor already aware

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the 3b criterion. Also, per merge discussion. The merged version was created by Jaespinoza; it's located here. Crzycheetah 05:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b, and the list will be merged per discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Procedural for merge that has consensus. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995

Notified: WikiProject Record Charts, primary contributor already aware

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the 3b criterion. Also, per merge discussion. The merged version was created by Jaespinoza; it's located here. --Crzycheetah 05:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b, and the list will be merged per discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Procedural for merge that has consensus. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Anuran families

Notified: LiquidGhoul, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has a list of reliable print sources, but no inline citations; we don't know what information is attributed to what source. Also, it has only four sources. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Three of the four sources were links, you could cite the information from them yourself and have the article's primary author cite the rest from the book. Abyssal (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Amphibians and Reptiles. Doing... Tezkag72 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The list may actually be out of date, following recent taxonomical changes. See for example, Frost et al (2006), The amphibian tree of life [1] and the Amphibians Species of the World (one of the sources) is now in version 5.3, which incorporates a lot of the changes proposed in the 2006 paper. GoEThe (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of awards and nominations received by Barenaked Ladies

Notified:WikiProject Alternative music, Gary King

A merge is certainly feasible at 15 items. Per criterion 3b, I don't think this list is long enough to warrant a separate page. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Definitely not enough nominations to be a separate list.--Crzycheetah 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type

Notified: WP LGBT, Interwebs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article fails to properly use "civil unions", which are legal arrangements between same-sex partners with benefits equal to marriage, but instead uses it as a term to refer to all same-sex unions with legal benefits, including those with less benefits (some domestic partnerships) or substantially less benefits (few enough to not be effected by a constitutional amendment banning "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals", as in Wisconsin). This leads to confusion. It's difficult to come up with a legal term that is usable and encompasses what the article means with civil unions, which are legal unions between to people of the same sex with benefits that are not private contracts, especially since the degree of benefits granted impacts whether the amendment restricts it, even if it is a same-sex union (again, see Wisconsin), thus making the language inconsistent. I propose delisting until a solution is found. Hekerui (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - this is an issue of editing and should be worked out on the article's talk page rather than in FLRC. Geraldk (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Geraldk - I don't see how the incorrect use of the term "civil unions" affects the FL status of this list.—Chris! _ct 22:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have been more to the point: the failure to correctly apply a word necessary for a basic understanding makes its featured status unwarranted. The article is misleading. My long explanation is about how I don't think this can be easily fixed. Hekerui (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing Wisconsin - arguments about Wisconsin seem rather hard to reconcile with the issues raised in the nomination, since Wisconsin's DP bill hasn't even gone into effect yet (slated to take effect July 1), let alone having been the subject of any legal action regarding its allowability under the state's amendment (itself the subject of a current WI supreme court case). Since as has been noted this appears to be an issue which can be reconciled within the normal editing process I can't see any reason why this should be de-listed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Shouldn't material lifted directly from consitutions be in quotes?

• I think so. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• To the FLRC nominator: what exactly is wrong here? Is it an issue of factual inaccuracy? If so, was it brought up with relevant WikiProjects first?

• The page has great graphics and generally looks good, but the basic terminology is so wrongly applied in that civil union has a specific meaning since 2000 and yet is used differently here - I wonder how this even passed in the first place. It didn't occur to me to drag this out, especially since the main contributor is retired. Hekerui (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this in excellent shape and I see no reason why it should be delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Columbus Blue Jackets players

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey and Kaiser matias .

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are many problems with it, including a short and sloppy lead paragraph and a harsh lack of references. The table could probably be improved a little bit as well. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As with the others you nominated I don't think the references are an issue because everything currently in the article that needs a reference has one. Numbers of references are not important, its the quality of the references and the fact that they cover all the information that could be disputed that is important. In that this page is mainly just a list of players and statistics I would only expect it to have one reference for 90% of the article and then the lead would have the remaining references. And I do agree that the lead needs a bit of expanding. -Djsasso (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Remove – Criterion 2. The lead is simply too short for FL status now. Also, the lead states the number of players was correct as of early March; that needs to be checked and updated. The Red Wings and Blackhawks player lists are good models for anyone interested in improving the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The lead needs to be expanded, the table updated and symbols added to accompany color. If these three things are done, then I think this can be kept. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of New Jersey Devils players

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey and Bsroiaadn.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because like the Columbus Blue Jackets list, it has a very small lead, and a very small amount of references (which are listed in a bad format). The lead needs expansion and sources, the tables need to be smaller, or the images need to be removed (at least for the goalies). Few other problems that should be easy fixes. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned on the other two you nominated, I believe the references are fine as they cover everything that might be questioned on the article. Remember its not the quantity that matters but the quality. The lead does need some expansion, and I fixed the table. It was missing some line breaks. -Djsasso (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead mentions the stats are after 2006-07, which is wrong I assume? Same for the statement about players playing in the 07-08 season. Alaney2k (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have overhauled the page, including stat updates, roster updates, and a lead expansion. Hopefully this will be sufficient to bring it back to the quality that it was when it was originally made FL status. Any questions, comments, please don't hesitate to reach out to me about any of my edits. Anthony Hit me up... 16:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looks much better. A couple things:

• We don't start lists off with "This is a list of..." anymore. See List of Detroit Red Wings players of a good example of an FL lead.
• You need to use symbols to accompany the colors (again see Red Wings list).
• You need to make a key for abbreviations and phrases such as SC, HHOF, Conn Smythe, etc.
• "1994-95 NHL season" Should be an en dash: "1994–95 NHL season"
• "282 different players have played on the team" "different" is unnecessary.
• "Only five players (Martin Brodeur, Sergei Brylin, Ken Daneyko, Scott Niedermayer, and Scott Stevens) have been a part of all three Cup wins, and eleven more have won two." Remove "only".
• "On the other end of the spectrum, 9 players have played just one regular season game on the team" "9"-->nine
• "Martin Brodeur holds virtually every team " "nearly" is more encyclopedic, I think.
• "The Devils have had eight captains, with Jamie Langenbrunner holding the captaincy since December 5, 2007."-->The Devils have had eight captains; Jamie Langenbrunner has held the captaincy since December 5, 2007.
• In the last paragraph, the third and fourth sentences are redundant to the legend below. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of San Jose Sharks players

Notified: WikiProject Ice Hockey and Kaiser matias.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not up to current standards, like the NJD and CBJ lists. It's got a small lead, few references, and multiple other problems. – (iMatthew • talk) at 17:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs to be fixed up, references however are fine as there doesn't need to be a huge number of references, the reference that are there just have to cover all the information which I think the references there do since they all list the players and the stats which is all this list is really about. -Djsasso (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Concerns
  • The first sentence in the lead...is obsolete. No bolded links, no word "complete"...
  • There should be at least two paragraphs in the lead.
  • Definitely needs updating. What is it, a month since the 2008-09 season ended?
  • The Key section needs tidying up a little. Those 3 tables are randomly placed. example
  • The note about "seasons column" is missing here, see the example above.
  • None of the references mention captaincy and award winners; citations are needed.
  • Boldface should be avoided in tables; the only exception is the heading.
  • A little info about "rotating captaincy" would be a plus.
  • There should be links to the 2008-09 media guide pages.

--Crzycheetah 04:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment See List of Detroit Red Wings players and List of Chicago Blackhawks players for examples of FL NHL players lists that are up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)