Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FLRC)
Jump to: navigation, search
WP:FLRC redirects here. You may be looking for Flagged revisions (WP:FLR)

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 Hahc21, NapHit, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat—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

Shortcut:

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
edit · history · watch · refresh


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[edit]

List of municipalities in Tennessee[edit]

Notified: Orlady, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Tennessee

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... it is no longer one of Wikipedia's best:

  • Bolding of "incorporated municipalities in the state of Tennessee" violates WP:BOLDTITLE
  • The census and land data need to be updated from the 2010 census
  • The population comparison should be updated/removed; 2000 is out of date
  • I don't see a need for the background colors
  • Ref 10 needs proper citation
  • The lead should be more descriptive of "municipalities in Tennessee", including the first municipality incorporated, a summary of the "Municipal charters" section, the most populous v. least populous municipality, etc; see List of cities and towns in California as an example.
  • The "As of 2007, 212 of the state's municipalities were operating under charters established ..." is seven years out of date
  • The caption requires a reference
  • The color indication of the "County seat" requires a text indicator, or a {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}, or something of the like
  • The "disincorporated" municipalities have no explanation in the text
  • Note "A" needs a reference
  • Reference 9 looks more like a note
  • Citations with page ranges need ndashs; references in general could be better organized by following the appropriate citation templates
  • The "Municipal charters" section is rather disjointed and could use a reorganization, and explanation of how the various forms of municipal charters differ in terms of administration and application

Not one of Wikipedia's best. Seattle (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

Nice list but the criteria from when this was promoted in 2007 changed a lot. The list is complete, it just needs someone to give it a decent intro and body text. Nergaal (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

YES, seems to be up-to-date with the latest available technical information afaik atm - also Yes - seems text (esp lead & body) - could be better - improving text *always* welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

Around 2 months ago, I raised concerns about the quality of this article on its talk page, which led to a helpful discussion but ultimately no apparent action. I am concerned about the quality of the referencing on the post 1910 wranglers, with tags and even a few helpful links to facebook. Whether somebody with access to a mine of information can get proper sources, or that section is simply removed, something needs to be done. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It used to be a pretty good list, but I agree that at the moment it falls rather short of the required standard. I'm pretty sure that the article used to be called "List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge)", but at some point over the last couple of years a number of well-meaning people have added extra content - in particular a fair amount of historical information about Wranglers, and also an incomplete (and, in most cases, rather poorly sourced) list of post-1909 Senior Wranglers. Somewhere along the way, the article got renamed to "Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)" on the grounds that it wasn't primarily a list any more.
It seems to me that a sensible and relatively straightforward approach to fixing all this is to:
  • Strip out most of the historical content and merge it into Wrangler (University of Cambridge) (there's at least some overlap anyway).
  • Separate the incomplete post-1910 list into its own article, something like "List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge) since 1910".
  • Rename what's left to something like "List of Wranglers (University of Cambridge) 1748-1909". This should now be featured list standard again, or not too far off.
I think we were converging on something roughly along these lines a couple of months ago, and then the discussion stalled. In my case, other stuff got in the way and I never got around to it. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The content of the article outside of the list sections is of good quality. It is not waffly or opinionated, and is sufficient to justify the existence of a separate Senior Wrangler article, as is the importance of the notion of 'Senior Wrangler' itself, which once had enormous significance nationally and further afield, and is still well-known within Cambridge University and the English-speaking maths world, to the extent that several mathematicians are widely known to have been SWs and this is considered to be a significant thing. So I disagree with merging it into the Wrangler article. In terms of content, it's the Wrangler article that could do with more attention. (That said, the Polya bit in the SW article needs revising, which is something I have meant to do but not found time to work on. There are conflicting accounts of how well Polya did.)
If you think there's scope for having both a "Wrangler (University of Cambridge)" and "Senior Wrangler (University of Cambridge)" article, then that's fine by me. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we all agree that changes to the article have meant that it no longer meets the requirements to be a featured list. I therefore suggest that we simply remove that status.
If there are some straightforward changes we can make to get it back to featured list quality then I'd rather we did it that way than demote it first and then reapply for featured list status afterwards. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Being a featured list as distinguished from being an article that isn't a featured list isn't always a question of quality, and I would argue that in this case it isn't, and that removing FL status wouldn't be demotion. It has become a different kind of article from a FL, in a healthy way. I don't see that as a problem at all. If nobody agrees with me on this, I suppose the pre-1910 list could be taken out and made into a separate article with FL status. I'm not sure I'd view that as optimal, though, given that many people who come to the SW article will probably want to read about the notion of SW and have a scan through the listed names. As for the post-1909 list, I think it is worth keeping in some form, principally because I think it is of interest to many people, even if it will probably never be complete, and most of the references are OK.Mhairis (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Many of the post-1909 references are OK. Not all, for sure; but they're by no means all or even mostly from Facebook. Several could do with more reliable sources, though.Mhairis (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Many of them are ok, but relatively few of them are of a similar standard as the pre-1910 ones. The post-1909 list is necessarily incomplete, anyway, and has only semi-official status compared to the pre-1910 list. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - I've been away for a while so haven't been able to get back. I plan to do make some changes to this article over the next few days. Jamesx12345 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've put the 2011 and 2013 SWs back in. 2011 2nd source is his old school, as it is for 2012 SW. 2013 2nd source is the Daily Telegraph (WP:NEWSORG). 1st sources for 2011 and 2013 are copies of the class lists kept at sites requiring login, but there's no ban on such sources, and even if there were, the other sources would be sufficient for these two years.Mhairis (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you are being bold, James12345x, but think you went a bit too far in commenting out some of the post-1909 SWs. I've uncommented the following: 2007 (existing source OK: Varsity), 2008 (ditto: Tuoi Tre (Youth), largest-circulation daily newspaper in Vietnam), 1970 (better source now found: Independent newspaper), 2000 (existing source arguably OK: Fields Medal winner Tim Gowers's blog).
An interesting case is 1970. The first I heard of Derek Wanless was when I looked at what was commented out for that year, which was sourced inadequately, but in good faith, to Les Hatton, described as a close personal friend of the subject. It didn't take long then for me to find a reliable reference. This suggests that there is sometimes some utility in leaving references up with tags, so that people who have got the time can seek and in some cases find reliable sources.Mhairis (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)