Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Global Warming Art

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. One of the FLRC delegates—Dabomb87 or iMatthew—determines 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 – #wikipedia-en-FL	Shortcut: WP:FLRC Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox Dead links FL Cleanup listing FL Cleanup task force Article statistics
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.

Lists nominated for removal

James Blunt discography

Notified:Underneath-it-All, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because there is not a single chart position that is sourced, it includes b-sides, the music video directors do not have a single source and this article fails 2009 standards for a featured list. Mister sparky (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Please notify relevant editors/Wikiprojects.—Chris!_c/t 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

have done. Mister sparky (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues: Chart positions, directors, a couple of unreleased songs arent't sourced. B-sides should be removed, and the lead needs to be expanded. Suede67 (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I believe the chart positions are cited, they're listed under "Chart positions" in the References section. It's just that they aren't inline cites. It shouldn't be more than an afternoon's work (for somebody who isn't offended by Mr. Blunt's music) to bring this up to snuff... indopug (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Dream Theater band members

Notified: WP:WikiProject Metal, WP:WikiProject Progressive Rock, User:Blackngold29.

3b. Only thing that will be added into the main article would be the timeline. As for everything else, it is already on the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Question Why would this not be grounds to delete all 68 List of band members articles? The essential components to a band are its music and its members; these two components should be included in the main article of every band. Merging a featured list into a C-class article simply seems counter-productive. blackngold29 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this band only has 9 members, which violates the community rule of 10. I purely nominated this list for FLRC because of that 3b criteria, and only that. If this band had 15+ current/former members, then it wouldn't have been nominated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it make a difference if I added a sentence or two about three singers who were in the band for about one show each? They aren't really considered "real members" today, and there's very little out there about them, but I may be able to come up with some sources if that'll put it over the 10 mark. blackngold29 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I have to agree with BlacknGold here. Looking over the Dream Theatre article, it is more than long enough to warrant sub articles that go in depth on specific topics. This article contains plenty of well sourced information to stand alone.

I also believe the avenue of approach is to consider a merger rather than delisting it (As it would be automatically delisted if a merger was sucessful) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The precedent is to go through an FLR, and if it is successful, the list is merged. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To reply to BNG29, those shouldn't be included into the article, as they weren't "officially" band members of Dream Theater, and didn't contribute to any of their releases from what I see. To reply to Floydian, most, if not all of the lead, is copied information from the History section of the main article. The released contributions are also in that section of the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be splitting hairs, but I wrote the lead from scratch. Obviously there are similarities, but it wasn't a copy and paste job. Also, the lead is cited throughout where the main article is seriously lacking citations. blackngold29 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it offended you in any way, but I just thought that most of the information in this article should be on the history of the main one. In a trying not to sound like I own the article way, I just think the information in this article can be put into the main one. Having quality is better than having stars (read that somewhere before), and this list currently doesn't meet criteria 3b IMO, as it can reasonably be included as part of the main article.; you could make the main article into a GA...-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame

Notified: WP:BASEBALL, Spangineer, Katydidit

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the criteria. It should have been nominated when the merger occurred, but still better late than never.

• Lead
  • Mostly unreferenced
  • The first sentence is now obsolete.

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Members of the Baseball Hall of Fame
  • The section title should be shortened and not to echo the title of the page

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The sentence explaining the "year" column should be a footnote

Actually, in keeping with the majority of recent baseball lists, it's been moved into the key. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • A "key" should be before the abbreviations, not as a footnote

done --Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The † and ‡ symbols should be clickable

These were moved into the key. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think the explanations are too long for the "key"?--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally? Yes, I do. I didn't put them there. But I think it's pointless to make all of the daggers clickable. It would make more sense to remove the daggers, replace them with em-dashes, representing blanks, since that's truly what they are, and add a footnote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's too long and that the daggers should be replaced and given a footnote. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The "year" column should be centered

done --Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The "Name" and "Percent of vote" should be sorted properly. The names are sorted by first name; should be by last name

done --Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The "percent of vote" is not sorting properly still.--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking out those symbols as discussed above would take care of that problem. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The images need proper captions and alt texts
    • Alt text has been added since the FLRC began, and the captions now in place seem reasonable. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Notes
  • The meaning of the word "pioneer" should be sourced
  • The † and ‡ notes should be sourced
• The list itself is hardly sourced. Is it sourced by an "external link"? It should be shown clearer

--Cheetah (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep – it's not ready to stay in its current form, but all it needs are references and a lead image, both of which I can easily provide within the two-week removal period. Compared to some older lists, this one isn't nearly that bad. I'll get to work on it forthwith. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Agree w/ KV5. If these issues are still pending in two weeks, it should be delisted, but I imagine we can fix these easily. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was getting there :-D! Hope I've learned a little something since my first attempt. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think we should make a separate column in the table that indicates whether they were elected by the BBWAA, Veterans Committee or committee on the Negro Leagues. This info is readily available.[1] Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Very valuable, would heartily support this addition. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Nice find.--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just saw that some member are tabbed as "Executive" yet there is no "Executive" field listed in the key. Not sure if this is intentional or not, since I think the Hall groups Execs and Pioneers as kind of the same category. Just wanted to bring this up. - Masonpatriot (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment as I just said on the talk page, I think it'd be great if we added what team each player was inducted from. This information already exists at each team's page but it'd be nice to have it all centered; for example someone may want to compare how many players each team had inducted. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• The reason that this is not included is due to the sometime arbitrary nature for which teams are selected. As the Hall, not the player, has the say over with which team a player had the most impact, and because their decisions are sometimes contentious for the players, the info isn't included. It's arguable, for some players, which team he should have been inducted with; he may have pitched 7 seasons for one team and won a lot of games and then won a World Series in two seasons with another, and thus was chosen to be inducted with the second team. Because of the possibly contentious nature of the information, I don't think it's necessary, and could cause stability issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I wish I had seen that reply earlier, because I added teams. You can roll it back if you think it should be pulled, but I do think it's worthy of inclusion as it is the Hall's standards. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that since most of the players are inducted as wearing a specific team on their cap, it's information that should be available in a list detailing inductees to the hall. While you can argue that Reggie Jackson should be wearing an A's cap, in the end he's in the hall with a Yankees cap, and this is indisputable. Redwolf24 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be preferable to change it to inducted as, or something along those lines? Redwolf24 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That would definitely be preferred. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've made the change. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone else feel that the positions column is too wide? This could be solved by abbreviating executive "EXEC" and pioneer "PIO" or "PNR", as is done at the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame, and also by placing those with multiple positions on multiple lines so it's not so wide (also with the "career" column). Also, I believe that the abbreviations should follow a common format, so they should all be all caps, like "1B" and "2B", resulting in "MGR" as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree. Redwolf24 (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure. But we still need to source the term "Pioneer". I did a quick search and came up with nothing. We've got another week, right? --Muboshgu (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
    • A week at minimum. If we are still actively working, the delegates likely won't close this until we start ignoring it, finish it, or quit. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done the dabbies. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my bad. Next I'm going to add {{sort}} to the percentages to make them sort correctly, just as soon as I can. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment – I added a couple inlines and another general reference, and plan on adding a few more cites when I get time. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Does anyone object to the multi-lining of dates to reduce the width of this table? I want to get specific line-by-line references in the table for each inductee. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed all positions which are linked in the table (all the field positions plus Ump and Manager) because the link provides as much information as the key (per another FLC comment). Left Pioneer and Executive, as they are unlinked. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment So how do we fix the percentages? We need to take those symbols out, but then a footnote goes in? Does that mess with the sorting? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

W	The content appearing above is a local copy of the Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates page from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It was written by various Wikipedians (contributor history) and is distributed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (license text). The version shown above has Revision ID: 316296623 and was last updated September 26, 2009, 12:43 pm.
	Current version on Wikipedia: view / edit	Read Wikipedia's disclaimers.