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A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates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]

Fantasia Barrino discography[edit]

Notified: Candyo32, WikiProject Discographies

This list has several issues. The lead has a "citation needed" tag, and it does discuss three of Fantasia's albums (The Definition Of..., Christmas After Midnight, and Sketchbook) or its related singles. The structure of the lead's third paragraph is also odd. By putting a lengthy part on "When I See U", the second single from Fantasia, before its lead single "Hood Boy" and third single "Only One U", the chronology is not entirely accurate. I would think the word "hit" would be discouraged for a featured list. The "music videos" table needs to be updated because Fantasia has released several music videos since "Without Me" back in 2013. There are also several issues with the citations. Reference 2 and 21 are marked as "permanent dead links", and there are bare urls (i.e. References 12, 13, 16, and 22). I believe all of these issues combined indicate that the list no longer meets the FLC criteria. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Rock music

This list has multiple citation-needed tags, a table that doesn't adhere to WP:Sorting nor is it updated per MOS:ACCESS, it also doesn't even adhere to the basic rules of MOS:ITALICTITLE that albums are italicized. Also largely based on a book source and many "refs" are just urls. It clearly no longer deserves the star. – zmbro (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Remove. This list has slipped very low since it was featured. A bunch of changes have been made, especially using false Halstead references with impossible page numbers, which I have removed. Other poor quality changes include violations of WP:NOR such as unreferenced assertions about songs being leaked to the internet. The list is in terrible shape. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delist - Lots of other strange things going on. Like "Name of this song was mentioned in 1993 Mexico deposition"... what is the Mexico deposition? Where is the missing "the"? In addition to citation issues and sorting issues and unaddressed tags. Mattximus (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the issues related above are trivial (I fixed one of them) and access could be solved in no time. Likewise, taking italics off text is trivial. Most of this could be fixed in a jiffy in someone who cared about it just got on with it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - not seeing any significant issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Digimon video games[edit]

Notified: Tezero, WikiProject Video games

Reading through this I notice a glaring number of errors that featured lists pages do not, and should not, have. These being the following:

  • GameFAQs is used a multitude of times throughout the article, which is not considered a reliable source per these discussions
  • Infobox should list all companies that developed Digimon games, yet it only lists Dimps and Namco Bandai
  • Several links are not archived
  • Several links are missing dates, authors or publishers, sometimes all of these
  • Lead is not written that well and is a bit hard to read. Examples being: "Digimon is a series of role-playing video games and other genres (such as fighting, action and card battling)", "The series started in 1999 (in the West) with the game Digimon World for the PlayStation, but released in 1998, there was a Japan-exclusive...", etc.

Article does not seem up to snuff with the Featured List criteria, and as such I vote to have it demoted. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey it does not look like you informed the original nominator and WikiProjects about this. GamerPro64 14:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is just something that you can fix yourself. If you see something you don't like, just be bold and make those improvements yourself. Personally, I am not a huge Digimon fan, so I would have little knowledge of how to fix the lead and make it better. According to your name and user page, you are a big Namco fan, so this seems like something you could do better research on than me. KingSkyLord (Talk page | Contributions) 18:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep a few dubious sources need to be replaced, but otherwise it's okay. A pity the nominator couldn't fix said issues rather than attempt a delisting here. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
But that's the thing, before nominating this for a delist I spent a long while combing through Google and the Internet Archive to find info on these, and turned up with nothing. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species[edit]

Notified: WP:CETA, WP:WPLISTS, User:Dunkleosteus77

  • "The following is a list..." archaic and discouraged wording
Do you have any recommendations?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject matter enough to recommend an alternate, but "This is a list" is frowned upon. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it not a list? You shouldn’t feel compelled to avoid recognizing it is in fact a list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that it is a list is not the point. TPH is correct that "This is a list..." or the like is not an appropriate way to open a Featured List. But I think the revised current opening to the list is fine. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead overall is way too short. Three sentences for such a huge list.
I expanded it a little, but this is a list so the lead doesn't have to be so big   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vast stretches are entirely unsourced. I get that it's a summary of content largely sourced elsewhere, but it still feels undersourced.
Where specifically? If you're talking about the footnotes, it's the IUCN website which is already hyperlinked in the table   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Way too many footnotes with poorly written trivia like "Virtually nothing is known about the abundance of Baird's beaked whales, except they are not rare as was formerly thought" which is also unsourced.
Seems like appropriate usage of footnotes to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's still unsourced, vague, and informally written. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
that reads pretty formal to me, and the IUCN link is the ref. To create a footnote ref would be redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The "cetacean needed" thing is cute, but I don't think it lends credence to a supposedly "featured" content
this was already discussed as a harmless note   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Several sourcing errors, including a "missing URL" error and otherwise incomplete citations.
I see just the 1 ref with an error, are there any other incomplete or otherwise incorrect citations or is it just the 1?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delist – per nom. Clearly no longer FL worthy, especially just based on the lead. – zmbro (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think it's not bad, I'd like to see MOS:ACCESS applied to the tables for row/col scopes, and units converted, but otherwise it's alright. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)