Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates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

Toolbox

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 Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks[edit]

Notified: Omg its will run, EurekaLott, TdanTce, Jayron32, Crzycheetah, WP Lists, WP Cleveland, WP USA, WP National Football League

A 2007 candidate that is almost wholly unsourced - most of the inline citations are actually unsupported notes. This is particularly concerning as part of this list falls under WP:BLP as many of these draft picks are still living. This would not pass WP:FLC in its current state and needs significant work. Hog Farm Talk 17:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not unsourced. There is a considerable list of references at the end of the article. Can you please itemize which of the things listed at WP:WIAFL this fails, it would be helpful so that someone can fix it up. The "wholly unsourced" is blatantly not true, the entire list is verifiable by sources already listed in the article in the references section. If you can identify a specific problem someone can fix with information that cannot be found, it can be fixed. This is an easily verifiable list, as there are lots of sources, in addition to the ones in the article. See, for example pro football reference, pro football hall of fame (requires a little more work, but still verifiable], etc. --Jayron32 18:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(b) statements are sourced where they appear ... Hog Farm Talk 18:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You accidentally forgot the functional part of item (b). The part you forgot to quote states "they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (bold mine for emphasis). The statement contains a link for clarification to WP:MINREF, which notes the four required inline citation. Individually citing every draft pick to the same inline citation is WP:OVERCITEing. It is sufficient to have a general cite for the whole list. --Jayron32 18:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WP:FLC director and delegates: - withdrawing this. I still think if this citation usage was sent through FLC today it would get lit up like a Christmas tree, but I'm not going to argue this. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine letting other voices comment on this. There's just the two of us commenting, feel free to wait for other voices. I invite them as well, and don't think we need to storm off just because I happened to ask for more details. You have concerns, I disagreed, lets let a few more voices ve heard here before we take our ball and go home in a huff. --Jayron32 19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did add the Pro Football Reference citation I noted above. It wasn't in the list yet, but it does allow the entire list to be verified. Is there anything else that isn't verifiable from that reference? Is there anything specific that needs fixing?--Jayron32 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a quick skim, it looks like it's all covered now. I think all of the sources are decent enough (about.com isn't always RS, but it looks like this author has written for the New York Times before, so it's fine). As it's really just a citation style disagreement, I think it's fine now. I'm more familiar with featured articles, where it is expected to painstakingly cite everything inline, but featured list is a bit of a different animal. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be inclined to include their picks from the three AAFC drafts as well, for completeness. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of governors of West Virginia[edit]

Notified (through ping): Golbez, Staxringold (both 2009 reviewers) and (via talk page notice) WikiProject West Virginia

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list itself is unreferenced. It's been an FL for a long time but even back in 2009, the list content should have been referenced, but it wasn't. Schwede66 18:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fully agree this shouldn't be an FL as it stands, but this should be low-hanging fruit as far as improvement is concerned. @Kavyansh.Singh:, this is an area you've worked in, any interest in taking this on? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The list relies on general references. Just as we don't need to cite every single sentence, we shouldn't need to cite every single row, when the references handle that. That said, it's fallen apart a bit in the last decade ('still living' table, party affiliation count, useless addition of lifespans and time in office, it's fallen well behind standards in other governor articles, etc.), so I won't necessarily vote to keep. But I will defend its use of referencing. --Golbez (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, let me check whether I've got that right. Say I wanted to confirm the term for William E. Stevenson (March 4, 1869 – March 4, 1871). Which general reference do I look at to do so? Because I cannot see that there is a reference for his term. And if indeed there isn't, are you saying that's good enough? Schwede66 01:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two general references, both contain the info you seek. Especially the first one, which if you had clicked it would have plainly offered the info you wanted. Are you complaining about the content of a citation you didn't bother clicking? --Golbez (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, maybe there is a reference in that list that confirms the term details (March 4, 1869 – March 4, 1871). The one that you pointed me to didn't; it merely confirms the years, which isn't good enough (at least in my books). It's also not good enough to expect a reader to go hunting in a long list of references. Schwede66 03:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ummm. So, you saw that there were links in that page, right? That will take you to the specific info on a specific governor? Are you implying that it's too much to expect our readers to click in a source to get more info? Should we use anchors to cite the specific words of a page, for those too unfortunate to know how to use their browser to search for words? You've been here a long time so I can't chalk this up to trolling or ignorance, so exactly how are you getting that it's improper to do anything but hand-feed our readers the sources? Your argument against expecting them to click would seem to remove any offline citations, since that would be impossible for them to see. --Golbez (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe you should read more carefully what I'm talking about. What you talk about in your reply is something completely different. Schwede66 05:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The one you pointed me to didn't, it merely confirms the years." Yes, and if you then clicked on the link labeled "William E. Stevenson" on that page, it would take you to the dates, as well as all other info on his term. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally I'm rather amused that the article for your example not only doesn't cite his lifespan directly, but the only web citation in the page doesn't include his birthdate without clicking a second link. --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A chunk of the introductory text discusses the ages of governors at appointment, I don't think its unreasonable for a reader to expect to be able to verify this without clicking through to article pages where the lifespans may or may not be cited. Likewise dates of office. The general reference mentioned above is no longer live and the archived version covers only pre-2009 governors. We are currently telling our readers this is one of our best lists - Dumelow (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ... didn't say they should ... okay, you know what, y'all have fun. I'm not defending the list, so I have no more purpose here. Y'all burn whatever straw men you need. --Golbez (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just cited the whole list to the Blue Book, and linked to the legislature's download section for the Blue Book. Might need a little work—I don't usually use this particular template, and the publication format is unusual. But it was pretty easy to find the source—the Blue Book was the first thing that I thought of, and it came up quickly in a Google search. The list on pages 328 and 329 covers just about everything in the table, except perhaps the dates of birth and death—which are presumably cited in each governor's individual article. As for the article "falling apart", someone does seem to have made major improvements to the table recently, so that's a plus. P Aculeius (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent! That's better. Whether the exact life range of each governor needs to be even part of this list is something that a FL review can establish (I'd say it's irrelevant detail but others may see it differently). And if it is decided that the life range should be part of the table, I'm sure there will be discussion on whether that needs referencing (my hunch is that it ought to be). Schwede66 03:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's useful to have, so I would keep it. I don't think each entry needs to have a separate citation for this one detail, provided that readers can locate the information in more detail from the individual articles about the governors, whose names are linked in the table itself. So as long as they have their own articles, there's no need for repetitive citations in just one column. P Aculeius (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the "Years are rounded" note intended to convey? CMD (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good question. Introduced last month with this edit. Makes no sense. Schwede66 05:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone looks at the version of the page before someone began revising the table in September—a sequence of edits very visible and at the top of the page history, so I don't see how it could be missed—they'd see that the previous version used fractions for partial years—"1½", "2½". Presumably the editor who revised the table thought that this was unnecessary: you can either state whole years or years and months—which also need to be rounded off, unless you want to add the exact number of days for partial months. I would guess that noting "years are rounded" was meant to forestall someone from conscientiously adding fractions back in to the table for precision. P Aculeius (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. However, the note is (and has always been) with the column of the term dates. The term length is the column to the right of it. Schwede66 20:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was probably misplaced, and should have been on the following line. That said, it seems unnecessary, so I've removed it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]