Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The closure log
edit · history · watch · refresh

Comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs), Hahc21 (talk · contribs), NapHit (talk · contribs), Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and SchroCat (talk · contribs), and other notes of pertinence.

FLC
  • FLCs of special note
    • We now have many lists in need of more attention. See here for the oldest ones. Please do what you can to contribute to these nominations!

FLRC
  • Kept
    • None
  • Delisted
    • None
  • FLRCs of special note
    • None.

In other news
  • Nominators, please feel free to nudge folks who have commented on your nominations to get them to return for a second look. Reviewers, please try to remember to return to lists you've commented on!!!!
  • If you nominate your own list, please consider reviewing at least one other...
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Featured content dispatch workshop 
view · edit · hist
2013

Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

2010

Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process
Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review
Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3
Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2
Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1
Mar 15: GA Sweeps end
Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards

2009

Nov 2: Inner German border
Oct 12: Sounds
May 11: WP Birds
May 4: Featured lists
Apr 20: Valued pictures
Apr 13: Plagiarism
Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations
Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates
Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds
Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT
Feb 23: 100 FS approaches
Feb 16: How busy was 2008?
Feb 8: April Fools 2009
Jan 31: In the News
Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates
Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders
Jan 10: December themed page
Jan 3: Featured list writers

2008

Nov 24: Featured article writers
Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page
Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest
Oct 13: Latest on featured articles
Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview
Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images
Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch
Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August
Sep 1: Featured topics
Aug 25: Interview with Mav
Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Aug 11: Reviewing free images
Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July
Jul 28: Find reliable sources online
Jul 21: History of the FA process
Jul 14: Rick Block interview
Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June
Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine
Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources
Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale
Jun 9: Main page day
Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May
May 26: Featured sounds
May 19: Good article milestone
May 12: Changes at Featured lists
May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities
May 2 (late): Did You Know
Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes
Apr 14: FA milestone
Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence
Mar 31: Featured content overview
Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter
Mar 17: Changes at peer review
Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration
Mar 3: April Fools mainpage
Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories
Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity
Feb 11: Great saves at FAR
Feb 4: New methods to find FACs
Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

Shortcut:
For a Table-of-Contents only list of removal candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured lists/Review list.

"Delist and merge" comments[edit]

I'm seeing this a lot recently, and I think people need to remember that merging is specifically an editorial decision that FLRC has no sway over. The only purpose of this page is to determine whether a list keeps its bronze star. If it fails 3b, then that's a valid delist !vote, but a "merge" !vote is something appropriate for AfD, not here. I'd like people to keep comments solely focused on "keep" or "delist" as to avoid any misconceptions. The hell that is the notability debate doesn't need to be dragged here also. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and well said. We don't even want to delve into those discussions... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm also finding the oppose !votes annoying. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Instructions[edit]

The instructions needed updating post-preload implementation. I think I've got the main points but the wording might need tweaking. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election![edit]

Hi all. We're going to be holding an election to determine a new FLRC delegate. If you wish to become a delegate, add your nomination by Monday, September 14th at 23:59 (UTC). Voting starts on Tuesday and ends on Saturday. Further information/instructions are on the page. iMatthew talk at 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Criterion 3.b[edit]

Looking at the listings in the Charts section under Music at WP:FL it is interesting to note that of the 26 lists there most don't really follow this criteria. Since this would include a larger number of lists, I thought it would be appropriate to open a discussion here. There are:

  • 9 lists with the title "Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 200x"
  • 7 lists names "Hot 100 number-one singles of 200x (United States)"
  • 2 lists named "Hot 100 number-one singles of 200x (Canada)"

These three cases are in my opinion a clear breaking of the criterion 3.b, as they can me merged into lists like "Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000s" (a list for 1990s exists!), "Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (United States)", and "Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (Canada)". Such lists exist for List of UK number-one singles from the 1990s List of UK number-one singles from the 2000s and I don't see what's different. Most of the 9+7+2 lists are on the short side, some barely having the 10 entries minimum. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force#3b. meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, you can see there's dozens of lists that potentially fail 3b. However, it would not be viable to nominate them all at once. If you feel the list fails 3b, I would first advise you to bring it up with the nominator(s) and relevant WikiProjects of the FL in question before nominating here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This might...[edit]

... be a good time to nominate one or two more FLRCs. I know there are a few already, but I don't think I've ever seen as few as 19 FLCs. Probably an idea not to go for discography or football though, otherwise lists that could have been saved might be demoted because the ideal person for the job had their hands full. Just a thought.

Regards, --WFC-- 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of acquisitions of X[edit]

I think that of the current 12 such lists, only 3 are truly long enough to warrant a separate article. Most of the others could be easily merged into a yet-created article History of X. I hope somebody will keep this proposal in mind. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Add a requirement for a talk page request first[edit]

At Featured Article Review it's now a requirement to raise the issues at the article talk page first, and allow a certain amount of time for them to be addressed before taking it to FAR. I find it strange that they have done so, given that they already have a two-stage process. But I think it's a simple measure that would translate very well to FLRC, placing a bit more emphasis on improvement in the first instance. Thoughts? —WFC— 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all. That said, I actually did an informal review of a list that I didn't think met current FL criteria on the list's talk page and was promptly reamed for it by the primary editor, who said, essentially, "That's how it is and it's going to stay that way". So sometimes it's inviting trouble. — KV5Talk • 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
And talk page concerns often are ignored. That's happened to me a few times, where I left some talk page comments in which I made it clear I was considering taking the list to FLR, only for nobody to respond. -- Scorpion0422 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a good idea to bring concerns to the talk page first, especially if the editor who is maintaining the list is still active. I don't have an opinion as to whether that should be a requirement or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I tried the "at risk" category for a while, this was essentially a re-review on the talkpage. It drew a lot of hostility. I'm happy to stick with reviewer's judgements on whether a list can be salvaged outside the process or if it needs a serious examination within FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow... hadn't expected this to come unstuck. I have come across problems on list talk pages in the past, but the main one was over a former contextless list of names that I had the gall to convert and take through FLC; such was one editor's furore that I had to go to WikiProject Football and the Sounders task force for explicit approval. Hadn't realised that problems of this nature were anywhere near as widespread as this thread suggests. You live and learn I guess! —WFC— 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd very much prefer if someone left a talk-page comment before considering FLRC. It is just polite and should result in an improvement with the minimum of fuss and grief. Talk pages are how issues are raised and addressed with articles all the time, featured or otherwise. If someone responds badly or ignores such a message, then that just reflects badly on them (assuming the original nominators/maintainers are still active). Colin°Talk 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Having a suggestion to resolve issues on the talkpage first would be nice but I don't think it would really help. I think most of the noms at FLRC (wether they are kept in the end or not) get a good amount of work because they are listed here. Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The idea of prior talk page notification is not without merit, but I'm concerned about whether potential nominators will want to go through all the steps. FAR, which used to be very active, has slowed substantially, to the point where it's been less active than FLRC lately. In the last month and a half, I count four noms that weren't pulled for lack of talk page notification. It's the slowest I've seen FAR be, and I can't help but wonder if the process is too much for people to invest their time in. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Strawberry on Vanilla[edit]

The 31 hour ban doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. The user has nominated six seasons lists for removal purely because he objected to the reasonable requests to improve List of Santos FC seasons because he based it on similar lists that were promoted, in some cases, over two years ago. As I'm not an admin I can't deal with the situation but surely this is WP:POINT and nominating six FLRCs at once is not exactly good practice. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the behaviour is disruptive to prove a point indeed. However, since I'm intimately involved, I'd rather not wield the might admin sword. Someone else can do that.... My preference would be to just run the Manchester United one and ignore the others, thus proving the stupidity of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair point, the stupid thing regarding the Liverpool list being nominated is that I recently imrpoved the table and it is now sortable and meets WP:ACCESS. The fact that he has not seemed to recognise this, in my eyes at least, proves that this is purely WP:POINT. Its a ridiculous situation, if he had put this much effort into fixing the problems on the Santos list he would solved the problems within a day. NapHit (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't disagree with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I think all of the nominations should be removed now. They are so pointy that it's impossible for me to take them seriously. I'm probably not even going to bother reviewing them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't his continual disruptive behavior be mentioned at someplace like WP:ANI? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite probably. Also, Giants, if you remove them all, that would get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the bans have not had an effect. The user is edit-warring with myself and another editor he has had past disagreements with over the simple matter of the width of a template, which was, of course, edited without discussion. The template in this case was an infobox, which widely affects a large number of articles. ANI may indeed be the next and most proper course of action. — KV5Talk • 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So when you and your friend revert anything it is called "editing". But when I do it, it is edit-warring...noted. Your hypocricy already showed when "enforcing" regulations. Now, it almost seems like I need a permission slip to implemment a letter or number. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the forum for this discussion, so I've replied on the user's talk page. — KV5Talk • 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Limit to one at a time, like FLC[edit]

Hello all. Given the recent spate of multiple nominations from a single editor who would be unable to cope with (intially) 40 and then five concurrent nominations, I propose we add a clause in the instructions, similar to FLC that limits this to a single nomiation. It makes sense, particularly given our current example where a nominator raises the same issue(s) on a number of lists, all of which could be simply updated rather than go via FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just think we need a ban on block nominations like the most recent one. It not only puts pressure on the nominator to keep track of everything, but it's difficult on the projects when a mass nomination occurs. If someone takes an interest in saving lists of a certain type, it's almost impossible for them when five are up at once. It doesn't even have to be a multiple-nomination ban, but just something that says you can't quickly nominate multiple lists in the same field. I would support something like that in a heartbeat. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. I'm just trying to come up with something useful and neutral and not 100% related to the nonsense that's going on here right now. By the way, should you feel that you want to axe these nominations, feel free. I'm too involved to do anything without it being perceived as something sinister. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree too. I think all our time today could have been much better spent than by arguing the toss over six (he's just done another one, but hasn't transcluded it) FLRCs in which half the reasons for nomination aren't even true...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I have to apologise for not stepping in but already being accused of misuse of my "admin powers" has kind of constrained my attitude to "wait and see it all blow up in his face". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Well let's see if we can get a good result. I've made a fair start at bringing List of Manchester United F.C. seasons up to current standards, and HonorTheKing has put a huge effort into making the table sort sensibly. All of this helps spread good practice among other editors, and we've established values for background colours to replace gold, silver, etc. that meet WCAG 2.0. As a spin-off from List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons, I've learned that ↑ and ↓ are not spoken by JAWS (screen reader), so I've created {{}} and {{}} (aka {{up-arrow}}, {{down-arrow}}) that can be used in the same way as the dagger ones we made previously. Not a bad couple of days if you look at it that way!
To address your question, I think it would be sensible to prohibit mass nominations to FLCR, although perhaps a couple at a time might be ok - or even "you can't nominate a second until your first has established some sort of consensus". Maybe keeping it to one would be simpler. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Mass FLRC nominations are as inappropriate as mass FLC nominations unless a prior discussion determines otherwise. I support the addition of a one FLRC at a time guideline. — KV5Talk • 19:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


WP:FLT[edit]

Anybody still paying attention to that list of potential FLRCs? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

/archive1[edit]

I'm confused — why isn't Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Provinces of the Philippines/archive1 located at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Provinces of the Philippines? Nyttend (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes template coding and archiving easier. Do you have a problem with the practice? Goodraise 18:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Last resort[edit]

Is Featured list removal a last resort page? I nominated a page for removal a couple of days ago Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1 and got a nasty obscene message which among other thing said I should not have nominated it here as it's a last resort. Is this true? If so, this needs to be on the instructions page. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

FLRC is not a tool in the dispute resolution process. It's not designed to be. While there's generally nothing wrong with nominating an article you think fails the featured list criteria at FLRC, it's not always a smart move to do so. Especially when done in response to a reversion, it can come across as strong-arming. My suggestion would be to withdraw the nomination, apologize and follow WP:DR. To put it differently, you haven't done anything wrong per se, you've just chosen a somewhat insensitive course of action. Goodraise 07:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I didn't intend it as dispute resolution, and my main reason for nominating was not related to the dispute. Perhaps the page should have a before nominating section like all the deletion pages? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not a deletion page, and there's nothing to be done "before nominating", at least nothing I can think off. Goodraise 01:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. It might be a good idea to ask the appropriate Wikiproject or a frequent editor of the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013, Anime Lists for FLRC[edit]

I have a list of articles I'm interested in sending to FLRC. If possible, I'd like someone to review my opinions here. Thanks DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Concern[edit]

I have a concern about the FLRC process that has to be taken care of. I've looked at the logs (October, November, December) and there are articles that have been voted to be removed. Yet, after they were "closed", they weren't processed. Because of that, the lists that were voted for removal still have the bronze star on it. This is something that really needs to be looked at. GamerPro64 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)