Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Removing featured lists in Wikipedia

This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were 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 delist has 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 as 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A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates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.

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of autonomous areas by country[edit]

Notified: Gary, Cordyceps-Zombie, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Politics

This is an old 2008 promotion, and it seems to have not been maintained in the interim. The lead is quite short and contains only two citations (2). Many of its entries explicitly lack citations, many of the apparent citations are notes, and many actual citations are just to Some entries are questionable (eg. French DOMs, Jakarta), or to meet only part of the leads inclusion criteria (eg. Spanish regions can not all, by definition, "in relation to the majority of other sub-national territories in the same country, enjoy a special status including some legislative powers"). CMD (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Abingdon Boys School discography[edit]

Notified: Town of Cats, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets our accessibility guidelines as required under WP:FLCR #5. Specifically, the tables have no captions, and they lack unique row-headers, which should be the title of the release in each case. RexxS (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: but why not fix it to comply rather than nominating for removal? Like you said, MOS:DTAB indicates that scopes and captions should be used. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have time to fix every FL with accessibility flaws. I think it's preferable to teach an active WikiProject how to fix the FLs themselves. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Added scope="col" to each column. Honestly, I think a bigger issue would be most of the references going to Amazon store pages. The accessibility issues described are easy to rectify, but if there aren't reliable sources, then that indicates deeper issues. (Edit: Looks like Amazon is OK for release dates. Not sure about the notes, however, but since most of them are basically "they did this one song" or are cited to Oricon, I would guess it would be fine? I don't know.) MSG17 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Update JohnFromPinckney has thoroughly overhauled the article, and all tables now have captions, sensible row headers and appropriate scopes. It may be that all of these types of FL dating from 2010 and earlier need a similar makeover to bring them up to our current standards, but I believe that Abingdon Boys School discography should now remain a Featured List. Hopefully the FLC director or delegates will agree and we can close this nomination. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Dubai[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

There are barely any pictures on this page, probably due to a mass purge of UAE building images on Commons some years ago. I might try to add some more images to this page in the next few weeks, but for now I don't think it deserves to be featured. Kestreltail (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Kestreltail Pictures can be added with the WP:FLRC process, what part(s) of WP:WIAFL does this fail? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Other than the pictures, a number of red links. Kestreltail (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 24 out of 74 items, or about a third. There are also some red links surprisingly near the start of the list, but if none of these are considered problems then I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Kestreltail (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - Wow, I have not seen a featured list with such lack of citations, some entire tables missing citations, random facts missing citations. It also has wild (possibly outdated) speculation running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, and has outdated style "This list ranks". Says "currently under construction" with no indication of what "currently means". Will be a lot of work to bring this up to standard. Mattximus (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the main list is fine. The under construction section needs some updating. Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Bucharest[edit]

Notified: WikiProject_Romania

While I fully appreciate the difficulty of maintaining such a list up to date with the lack of available informatino, I am nominating this for featured list removal because if currently fails the Comprehensiveness and Stability criteria. The following issues are observable:

  1. The lead is not in sync with the inclusion criteria: it mentions 50 m, while the inclusion criteria is 60 m.
  2. Lacks some buildings present in the Romanian version, specifically older, communist blocks (e.g. "Bloc 15D").
  3. Sources do not support the data (e.g. for Ana tower the height is not mentioned in the source) or are outdated (e.g. for Monaco towers it seems to be an old version of the website from before the buildings were completed; the current completion date seems to be 2010).
  4. The notes are out of date (e.g. for Bucharest Corporate Center) or present original research not supported by the source (for Millenium Business Center).
  5. Abuses internal links by linking all entries of the same group of buildings to the article.

Before nominating I left the same message on the TP of the article and WikiProject Romania.Strainu (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This looks salvageable but needs some work. Additional issues I notice:
    • File:Bucharest Height Chart by Vlad Tronciu.jpg is all but sure to go out of date—August 2020 is alright enough for now, but this is a serious WP:ENDURE concern.
    • Coordinates columns shouldn't be sortable, and there should be a references column.
    • Some reference dates are formatting as YYYY-MM-DD.
    • There should be images of all the buildings, as these aren't really hard to obtain for anyone living in the city. The image column should also probably be removed for the "under construction" section as its empty.
    • A dynamic map of where the tallest buildings are located within the city would be nice.
Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Please note that Romania doesn't have FoP, so images of every building should not be a requirement (per WP:FUC).--Strainu (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist This one isn't that bad. With a bit of work, someone could get it back up relatively quickly. ~ HAL333 05:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist- Certainly not up to current standards. Many outdated terminology "This lists ranks", some of the under construction buildings have dates indicating they should be completed last year. Lead year out of date. The "proposed" or "approved" sections shouldn't even be there, they run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of work to bring it up to current standards. Mattximus (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of schools in Cardenal Caro[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Schools

This page is maybe salvageable but would definitely need some work (and it's on such an obscure topic, I'm not sure that that work will be forthcoming). Issues include outdated enrollment figures, failure to sort the years column properly, potential overuse of foreign terms/italics and other minor style issues, and missing websites. There have been some moves or something that have turned the nominator into a redlink, so I'm not sure if they're still around or how to reach them if they are. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I have updated the article with the latest enrollment info from the Ministry of Education. Although 101 schools are listed, 39 have no students and may be closed. One such school, Quebrada del Nuevo Reino, had students in 2014 and I have removed it from the current list. --Kuatrero (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist There are a lot of strange problems with this list. The lead does not match the list (for example, largest school population number), there are categories defined in the lead but not including terms in the table (what does Middle Major mean?), some of the paragraph under schools should be footnotes, "The enrollments given here are" is outdated terminology (tautological) and could simply be (2020) in the column header. There need to be more citations (how do we know there are 26 schools in the lead, what source is that from?). It's not impossible with some effort to bring it up to standard if someone is willing, but it's extremely niche. Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of De La Salle University people[edit]

Notified: Moray An Par, WikiProject Higher Education

This list has quite a few issues. The lead is overlong, mostly bloated by examples that should be in the tables. In the alumni table, the relationships column is a mess, with some entries just marked with "U", which I'm not even sure what it means. A few are missing references, as are some faculty entries. I'm not sure whether the honorary degree recipients are important enough to warrant listing. In the references, there are a few permanent dead links, a title error, and a ref used several dozen times that should be in the column heading. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist Per all of the points by Sdkb. Some of the inclusions are definitely questionable, such as one redlinked alumnus known for being "Wanted by US police as a pedophile"?... ~ HAL333 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist - Red linked alumni should all be removed. And I'm not sure what "people" means in the title. Perhaps narrowing the scope to alumni would be wiser, with a separate page for presidents. The "relationship" column is unsourced and I'm not sure what it even means. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of mammals of Canada[edit]

Notified: Circeus, WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this 2007 nomination for removal because it is lacking in sourcing, as evidenced by the template. Many of the conservation statuses are not cited. I also wonder whether any have changed since 2014 (Having recently done this for a much shorter list, I know that adding dozens of IUCN citations is no easy or quick task.) Many images are also absent, despite availability. ~ HAL333([1]) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist. The sourcing tag is definitely valid, which alone is enough. The images are also lacking, and there are concerns about the formatting. No improvement since nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not know what is meant by the "sourcing tag".
  • The main problem is that, due to the lower standards in 2007, the article was promoted in spite of the limited references. The lack of images is also due to the article's age as all the available images I have checked are dated after 2007. Is the nominator Circeus interested in updating the article to modern standards? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I definitely do not have the energy or time to work through the list all over at this point, especially with libraries shut down here b/c of coronavirus. Circéus (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist – no in-line citations in lead or tables to verify facts, poor accessibility due to lack of proper alt text, and poor visual style in violation of FLCR #5a due to inconsistent text formatting. I don't think this is going to get updated any time soon. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)