Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

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.

Dweller and Sephiroth BCR are delegates who act as FLR directors and 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 directors or 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

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 prior to 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 list tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  • Place {{FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  • From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  • (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the "Move" button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of television stations/archive1
  • Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  • Below it, write your reason for nominating the list. Note which of the featured list criteria that the list fails to meet.
  • Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article}} 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.
  • Finally, notify the user that nominated the page for FL status, any relevant WikiProjects and other significant contributors. You can find the significant contributors through the article stats script.

Contents


Lists nominated for removal

List of Australian ODI cricketers

Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1

The article fails to meet featured list criterias 1 and 2. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Indian ODI cricketers

Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1

The article fails to meet featured list criterias 1 and 2. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Hong Kong ODI cricketers

Notified: WT:CRICKET, Nev1

The article fails to meet featured list criterias 1 and 2. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 07:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment
  • I think the title should be titled, "List of Hongkonger ODI cricketers", since most of the article related to this one have the format, "List of (Demonym) ODI cricketers". -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 07:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree; that leads to strong problems with picking a demonym, as not every case is clear-cut. (Ivorian? Ivoirian?) Furthermore, I tend to think of demonyms as denoting ethnicity or citizenship; this is merely people who have played for Hong Kong in an ODI. I wouldn't call everyone who has played for the Yankees a New Yorker. --Golbez (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

List of U.S. states by elevation

Notified: User:Hike395

Fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 1 and 2. Also, it lacks sources. —Chris! ct 06:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Added citation to main data (previously in EL). Lede can be easily worked on --- please give this a few days, and we can make it fulfill the new criteria. hike395 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, a removal nom generally last 14 days. So, you should have enough time to work on it.—Chris! ct 19:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Delist unless improved; there are redundant columns (ft and m can be combined), bad intro, deficient citations (need to use the proper templates), and what is the rationale for picking McKinley over Denali, but not Mauna Kea over Pu'u Wekiu? Finally, why does Kentucky get a special cite? --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, the rounding is a bit odd on DC, which has a minimum elevation of 1 foot, but 0 meters. If the columns were combined, it would be clear which was the dominant figure (I'm assuming feet), and which is the calculated one (meters). --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Delist - Lead is small and does not comply with Cr 1&2.--SRX 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reopen discussion I have written an introduction, which seems to be the main objection. Feedback is welcome. hike395 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Golbez, I have copied to my sandbox an example of how the table could look if many of the columns were combined. As of the moment, my example is unsortable, but that and other issues can be remedied. Take a look and tell me if you think it would be an improvement. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CZW World Heavyweight Championship

Notified: WP:PW

I'm nominating this one because of it's lack of a lead and reliable sources. As far as I can tell, "CageMatch.de", "Smart Mark Video", "Solie’s Vintage Wrestling" and "CZW Database" aren't very reliable. -- Scorpion0422 00:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove - Fails Cr 1-3,+5, lead fails to FL compliance's and WP:LEDE compliance's. Tables need to be updated, small font needs to be removed, trivial information has to be removed.--SRX 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Remove per lack of reliable sources, and short lead. iMatthew 01:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Namibian ODI cricketers

Notified: WT:CRIC
Fails FL criterias 1, 2, and 3. Statistics are also out of date, as it has last been updated in 2005. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy remove ;) - Article lacks sources, needs more information, and is only updated through 2005. iMatthew 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If it makes any difference, Namibia haven't played a One Day International game since 2005 - so the statistics are not out of date. Of course, we need to update the "year as of" statistic, but this is easy to do (should we alter this to 2008 or to {{currentyear}})?. Otherwise, what further introductory information should we include in the lead section? Any WP:CRIC members with ideas? Statswise, Howstat provides us with all the data we need - what further sources are necessary if they will simply duplicate the data already available without adding anything significant? Bobo. 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In-line references are prefered to a couple of links at the end of the article. Perhaps the lead could be expanded with a little about Namibia's ODI history (when they first played, why they haven't played since 2003). Since the most matches any player has played is 6, perhaps a note on the outcome of the series the team played (it can only be a handful). Also some notes on the captain(s). Other than that, I'm stumped. Nev1 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
True enough about inline references - though once again, if we rely solely on Cricket Archive's stat machine, it would be the same reference repeated fifteen times. Perhaps linking through to Cricket Archive stats would reduce this redundancy. Bobo. 10:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
What I'm doing with List of Irish ODI cricketers (a work in progress) is giving links to the record of each player, saving anyone reviewing the article thhe effort of trawling through more links than necessary to check the info. It's boring, but it's not particularly hard. I think the biggest problem is the lead, but I've made suggestions to expand it. I think in its current state, the article is not an FL, but it has potential to be salvaged IMO. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm afraid that, like many of these old cricket lists, this one is heavy on the WP:STATS. The lead is rubbish. It should be about Namibian cricket, not about limited overs which the reader can find via a link. I won't vote yet because I don't know enough about this process but I think the nominator has got a point. --BlackJack | talk page 06:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added some additional text to the lead. Is this the sort of thing that's needed? I'd appreciate it if someone could check it over. I can add inline citations fairly easily, but I'm not sure where they should go for the table. --Cherry blossom tree 22:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You could add a reference column to the table. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to notify additional interested parties, such as the original FLC nominator, and maybe the current two most active contributors? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The FLC nominator hasn't edit Wikipedia since 2007, I already addressed to one of the current active contributors to this article, but the other one...well I didn't notifiy him... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 06:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Artiticle is now fully referenced, the lead has been expanded. Does more need to be done, or does the article now satisfy the FL criteria? Nev1 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know yet. Guess we'll just wait and see 18 days later. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment

Instead of the flag of Namibia, why not just put a image of one of the cricketers instead. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Because no free use images are available. Nev1 (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Then what's the point of putting the flag of Namibia? Just don't have the image on the article, since it is kind of useless. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in having the flag. The image is free, it makes the article look better, and it is related to the topic. I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way though, and I see your point. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you just removed the thumb part of the image. That'll be great. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this what you mean? Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment
  • Starting the list with "This is a list of ..." is discouraged —Chris! ct 06:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Is this more to your liking? Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yes that is what I want—Chris! ct 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments by SatyrTN
  • Table should be sortable. "Batting", "Bowling", and "Fielding" should be move to "Key". Will also need to use {{sort}} for the "100/50" and "BB" columns, and {{sortname}} for the "Name" field.
  • Per previous commenters, the lede is a) not about Namibian ODI cricketers and needs to be re-written.
  • Weak Remove" until issues are resolved. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

List of World XI ODI cricketers

Notified:WP Cricket, User:Stephen Turner.

I don't feel this meets the criteria for a featured topic. While the prose is okay and the lead engaging, it is not particularly comprehensive, it is out of date and has a reference (note, a single reference) that links to CricInfo page on World XI results on one series, rather than any kind of list of current capped players. The structure does not offer any kind of special features such as the ability to shuffle the list according to which facet you wish to order it, it doesn't have much visual appeal either. Thus, I have FLRC'd it for comment. SGGH speak! 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks to the user who notified Stephen Turner, and put the nofitications on this page. SGGH speak! 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have changed the Cricinfo reference to one that shows all matches and will update if there are any more. I can't find such a reference on CricketArchive or any other sites. 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Sam Korn (smoddy)
  • Remove for now - just one reference!? iMatthew (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not experienced in FL matters, so I don't know whether this is the end of the world. The information here is all provided by that reference, it is uncontroversial and the reference is reliable. Furthermore, the reference is the only one, so far as I can see, that exists. Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
      • More than one reference should be used in order to give objective information about the subject. A key section is needed here, as well.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

*Remove - One reference does not verify the entire list. The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEDE and the way it starts is a big no-no, "This is a list of ___" is discouraged in FL's. It also seems to me that it needs to be updated, last update was October 2005. Fails FL Cr 1,2,3,5--SRX 16:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - after the expansions to this list, it now complies with WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, the reference does verify the whole list, under any conceivable definition of "verify" (check it!). It is not out of date, as there have been no World XI matches since October 2005. If it is not acceptable for a featured list to have but one reference, fair enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Could User:Crzycheetah be more specific about a "key section", please? What do you envisage? The details cannot be updated as the last match was in 2005 but I do wonder if there is too much WP:STATS here. I still have an open mind, especially as I'm unfamiliar with the ropes of this process and its "big non-nos". BlackJack | talk page 06:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – there are several issues that need to be addressed:
  • The "this is a list..." style is no longer used and needs to be changed.Y Done
  • Please right-align the image.Y Done
  • The lead is entirely unsourced.
  • Give a brief explanation what an "over" is for non-cricket people.
Very few (if any) cricket articles explain what an over is, they simply wikilink the term in the first instance. Generally this seems to be acceptable as it is a widely known term for those who follow cricket, IMO. SGGH speak! 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Try to incorporate the items in parenthesis into the text.
  • "Where more than one player won his first ODI cap in the same match, those players are listed alphabetically by surname" has an awkward structure. Change to "In cases in which more than one player won his first ODI cap in the same match, these players are listed alphabetically by surname"Y Done
  • Put a section header on the list.
  • Given the heavy amount of statistics, sortability would be a good option.
I have tried to implement this but I can't get it to stop sorting the uppermost row of "Batting", "Bowling" etc. Hopefully someone with more expertise will come along. SGGH speak! 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have sort of got it, but someone will still need to be looked at SGGH speak! 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Someone else has removed what I changed SGGH speak! 23:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • All the links in the "Team" column need to be fixed.
  • Use en-dashes for empty columns.Y Done
  • "2005-" - use en-dashes please.Y Done
  • Why are there asterisks on items in the HS column?
An asterisk denotes an innings that ended not out SGGH speak! 18:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep: the lead has been significantly expanded and I believe the article now satisfies criteria 1, 2, and 5. It always satisfied criterion 3. Wisden/cricinfo is considered pretty much definitive in the cricketing world. One reference for the statistics is sufficient. Also a key has been added, although having two separate tables looks frankly ridiculous. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The separate table part is only temporary by me trying to get the sorting thing working, awaiting someone with more knowledge to come and finish the job, as I stated above. SGGH speak! 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate why it was done (if you look at the article history you'll see I tried to integrate the two tables, then understood why they were separate), but since the two don't line up it does seem silly. I don't know who to ask for help, any ideas? Nev1 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
If you look at this version, you'll see I had something approximating what we want, only with the rows the wrong way round. Closer? Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the top part for now, as it has occured to me that we don't really need it. The column headings make it pretty clear whether its fielding, batting or bowling... SGGH speak! 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A good idea I think. I did the same on list of Irish ODI cricketers, but was waiting to get some other opinions before I started changing other articles. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments by SatyrTN
  • The table needs its own section header
  • The table also needs a key
  • Instead of the separate header table, which doesn't quite match up, I recommend using the "Key" section to describe each column header, and have two sub-sections of the key for Batting, Bowling, and Fielding. See the current FLC List of Irish ODI cricketers for a key and imagine the sub-sections :)
  • Column headers should not be wikilinked - that can be done in the Key, too.
  • You may need to make use of the {{sort}} template for the "Best" column.
  • Per MOS:FLAG, having the flag in this table doesn't add anything the text doesn't already show. They should probably be removed.
  • You should make use of {{sortname}} for the "Name" column.
  • Oh - now I see the Key. That should be before the table :)
  • Weak Remove until some of the above have been addressed. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Key expanded and before table, table sortable, top row delinked, header added, and flags removed. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • an innings that ended not out should either be an inning that ended not out or innings that ended not out
    • It is "a batsman's innings" there is no "inning" in cricket, as far as I am aware "an innings that ended not out" is correct, see Innings. SGGH speak! 10:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The statement above the key that says Statistics are correct as of 30 October 2005. is either misleading or needs expanding. If there have been no games since October 2005 and there aren't likely to be any, it should be changed to something like "Statistics are correct through the last XI ODI game played, 30 October 2005." or something like that. If there may be more games played, then expand it a bit to explain: "Statistics are correct as of 30 October 2005. No games have been played since then."
Done. An innings in cricket is one of those strange words which is the same singular and plural, so there is no need to change the sentence as the grammar is correct. Nev1 (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support for keeping this FL. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I have made High Score sortable in the table, was there a particular reason why it was set as unsortable before? SGGH speak! 10:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd thought it was unsortable, when I was playing around with the preview I must have done something weird because it wasn't sorting it correctly. Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 19 November 2008, at 07:44.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by PediaView.com. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with PediaView.com.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.