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


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.
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]

Vittorio Storaro filmography[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it needs many additional references. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

List of municipalities of Finland in which Finnish is not the sole official language[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Finland

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the concerns raised on the list's talkpage, esp. that there is no sourcing for the information in the main body of the list. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The percentages at least are sourced to Tilastokeskus / Statistikcentralen (Statistics Finland, accessed 24 March 2014): "Population according to language and the number of foreigners and land area km2 by area 1980-2013" as shown in the table. Not "no sourcing". Rmhermen (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, no sourcing for virtually every "fact" mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist until I see clear inline sourcing for the claims in the lead then it's a no-brainer for delisting. I am surprised a list with such lean referencing made it to TFL, but it was a nice attempt to do something different I guess. Other things:
    • "Alphabetical list" - the list is sortable by columns, not just alphabetical....
    • Plenty of blank cells which always troubles me.
    • "Åland" sorts odd because of the diacritic.
    • What the hell is "class= hintergrundfarbe6" in the table coding? We should be using standard and accessible coding for screen readers etc. That includes row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
    • While pretty, what do the icons next to the municipality name do other than decorate the list?
  • Far from ideal, needs rapid fix or rapid delisting and while we seem to have gotten away with it (bar Lugnut's observations), this kind of list should not be TFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And we would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that meddling Lugnuts! Zoinks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Pesky Lugnuts.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you notified the original nominator? Seattle (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest doing that as a courtesy. Seattle (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't know who it is. You can ping them. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Came here from the main page. The "checklist" at the top of FLRC clearly says "Notify relevant parties blah blah blah". This step should not be optional, IMHO. It took about 10 seconds to look up the original nomination from the talk page and see that it was User:Biruitorul, a user still active on Wikipedia.
Anyway, enough procedural rambling above. On the content, I do agree that the article needs some fixes, although this seems rather possible considering the short length. SnowFire (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Until that step is mandatory, then I refuse to notify them. Hopefully they've got the list on their watchlist if the care enough. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - this list lay basically dormant for years until User:Neelix overhauled it with the intention of bringing it to the Main Page. Of course it would never pass FLC today, but back then, standards were looser. I (we, if anyone wants to collaborate) will see about sourcing (this looks to be a good starting point) and technical fixes. If the issues are addressed in time, good. If not, it'll be no big deal to take it back to FLC when it's ready. - Biruitorul Talk 00:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Norwegian, but the corresponding Norwegian list is also featured and it looks like that article contains more sources than the English version. If anyone knows Norwegian, those might be good sources to use. Neelix (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've got a talking dog that speaks Norwegian. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The Rambling Man, many thanks for your constructive suggestions. I believe I've addressed them all, but if you or others have further concerns, do let me know. - Biruitorul Talk 16:20, 18 June 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)