Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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]

List of major opera composers[edit]

Notified: Adam Cuerden, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Opera

While reading some FL-related talk pages, I came across a link to the old FLC task force, where I found this list. It fails to meet the modern FL criteria in many ways:

  • The lead is very short and it seems designed to make the reader go to other articles for background that may provide added context, instead of attempting to briefly summarize the background as a newer FL would. I'd expect a lead of three paragraphs or so for such a significant topic.
  • The introduction isn't much better than the "This is a list of ..." openings that have gone out of favor.
  • It doesn't appear that all of the content in the composer notes is cited. Often, there are cites in the note, but not at the end; it therefore becomes hard to determine if the cites are meant to apply to the content, or whether it was added after the fact.
  • In particular, none of the notes in the Female opera composers section appear to be sourced.
  • I'm unsure whether the method of determining consensus for inclusion by checking 10 major sources holds up to modern standards. For one thing, have there been any major opera history books published that deserve to be included in what the article calls the "sample" of sources considered? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree that this should be de-featured unless anyone wants to extensively rewrite it. The crux is the absence of any clear deinition of 'major', together with some confusion as to whether we are considering major operas or major composers. In addition to the points made by Giants2008, I note (amongst many other issues): John Gay is not a composer, and Pepusch a very minor figure (if Gay and Pepusch why not, e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan?); what is the point of specifiying a Mozart extract as being 6 mins. 49 secs., which could suggest to the uninformed that this is its authorized duration?; why Gershwin, Schreker and Pfitzner?; no male born after 1950; female composers listed very doubtfully qualify as 'major' composers, I'm afraid - perhaps better separate lists of male and female composers? The whole thing needs a complete rethink. --Smerus (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Death Cab for Cutie discography[edit]

Nominating this FL for removal due to the large amount of references lacking in specific areas. Seems to be a victim of not keeping up with rising standards since its promotion back in 2008. I've applied reference tags where necessary, but to sum up:

  • None of the release dates in the article provide citations.
  • 1 digital album is unsourced.
  • 5 extended plays are unsourced.
  • 1 digital extended play is unsourced.
  • 22 singles do not provide citation to prove they are singles.
  • 1 video album is unsourced.
  • All 16 music videos are unsourced.
  • 15 other appearances are unsourced.

Was unsure who to notify, as the main contributors all stopped maintaining the article as late as 2011. Azealia911 talk 20:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist per extensive referencing concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This is no where near the quality required to be featured. MaranoFan (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan filmography[edit]

Notified: Happyme22, Lionelt

I think this looks like being a victim of the rise in standards over the years. We insist on having citations for the tables now - and neither the film or televison table is supported by reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist too many unsourced roles. The "entertainment career" section is also unnecessary and contains needless details. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men[edit]

WikiProject Film

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't meet current FL standards. Promoted in 2009. Sparse lead which doesn't adequately cover the topic. Table is not accessible. Numerous dead links. No infobox to summarise the awards. Original nominator has retired from the project. Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I might try to rewrite the lead and fix some of the references. I'm not good at the table so someone else has to do that part.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Post an update here when you're done. It's already looking better. Cowlibob (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I hope to be done with almost (if not all) of the improvements needed for the list to retain featured list status before October 18 (when I nominate 65th Academy Awards for featured list status). I'm now trying to replace the dead or questionable links at this moment. Schoolwork and lack of sleep may bog me down, so anybody is free to help out.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • All the dead links are replaced for now. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)