Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
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 Hey man im josh, 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:
Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:
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 A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the |
Featured list tools:
Toolbox |
Nomination procedure
|
Nominations for removal
[edit]- Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television
Unfortunately I feel that several older 30 Rock items are failing modern standards. I am beginning here as I feel it is a clear cut example. I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that it fails criterias 3 and 5. It lacks a development section as detailed in MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The awards section features no prose and points to a separate list which covers other content in addition to season one. Adtionally neither a caption nor alt text is provided when needed. Lastly a possible style problem with the relevent episodes not being linked in the cast section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Remove I've said a time or two that most season articles should actually be a process for WP:FAC and not FLC. I do understand that a large majority of these are were promoted quite a while ago, and that in recent times, they gone through the proper channels, but I also wouldn't be against a mass exodus of these articles as FL's. They tend to follow the format of a standard article more that of a list. Anyhow, within this "list" specifically: as the initial commenter stated, I'm largely noticing a lack of compliance with MOS:TV in the case of article layout, listing the number of episodes characters appeared in, and poorly written episode summaries that feel more like promotional taglines than they do summaries. There's also just a few general MOS failures, such as WP:BLUESEA violations and the use of {{Quote box}}. I'd be more inclined to leave a full review if I see progress being made here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... potential hot take but I don't see any major issues. Sourcing seems fine, so I'm assuming the nomination is discussing FLCR #3(a) more than 3(b), and 3(a) is focused on including all key items in the set the list covers (which this does – it lists all of the episodes). A production section would be nice, but I don't interpret MOS:TVPRODUCTION as requiring one and I suspect a large portion of the information would just reiterate the cast and crew sections. An awards section that would just duplicate information from the show's full list of awards may not be necessary, either – just a few sentences added to cover its major awards (Emmys, Golden Globes, major guilds...). As to FLCR #5, I think the only issue mentioned is the images per 5(b) and 5(c), which can be easily addressed. Basically, I think the page does its job as a list. Whether season articles should be considered as lists or articles is a bit out of scope for this, at least to me. Please correct me if I've misunderstood the issues raised in the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove seeing no other edits. Not convinced the prose / referencing of the larger article is up to FA snuff. Also, the URLs have moved to the memorial website (e.g. https://www.stiftung-berliner-mauer.de/de/gedenkstaette-berliner-mauer/historischer-ort/bernauer-strasse ), so it'd be cool if rather than relying on Wayback copies, they were updated, but more of a nice-to-have. (Also, some parts of the table are questionable IMO... why is the person's birthdate & age relevant? But I'm a "less is more" type.) SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thebiguglyalien, did you notify the relevant editors and WikiProjects? If so, please add that to the nomination. If not, please do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not. I wanted to bring attention to this, I'm not particularly sure how you guys like to go about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien: I've notified WP Germany and MILHIST. In the future, this can be done with Template:FLRCMessage. I'll be giving this a bit more time since no wiki projects were notified, and I hadn't actually responded to you (sorry about that). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did not. I wanted to bring attention to this, I'm not particularly sure how you guys like to go about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with SnowFire that this probably shouldn't be considered a list. This is a 5,600 word article complemented by a list. The redirect Deaths at the Berlin Wall seems far more appropriate. Considering the extent of the prose in the article it's very surprising that there are still citations in the lede. I have not read through this article in detail because with only a brief skim I've added twelve cn tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would we consider reverting the article back to its FLC state (or a similar revision) and splitting much of its newer prose content to a new article? "Deaths at the Berlin Wall", suggested above, seems appropriate. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [1] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302, @Fade258, I've realized now that the list has been updated by @Magentic Manifestations (who I wish would have commented as such here). Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed or you'd still like the article to be delisted. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302, @Fade258: Could you state whether @Magentic Manifestations has addressed all of your concerns? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. There is only 1072 characters of prose text (excluding text in tables), this is insufficient for a featured list, as it still fails points 2+3 of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. So I still support removal of FL status. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Magentic Manifestations: Do you have any interest in continuing to improve this list's lead any further? It's fine if not, just trying to wrap up some old nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. There is only 1072 characters of prose text (excluding text in tables), this is insufficient for a featured list, as it still fails points 2+3 of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. So I still support removal of FL status. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302, @Fade258: Could you state whether @Magentic Manifestations has addressed all of your concerns? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)