Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

Zobacz też:

Removing Featured Lists in Wikipedia If you feel a list on Wikipedia:Featured lists should no longer be featured, then this is the place to nominate it for demotion. Only lists that do not adhere to the featured list criteria should be listed. Objections raised must be actionable. For a nomination to be demoted, consensus must be reached that it no longer meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators, as determined by the delegates who act as FLR directors, Dweller and Matthewedwards. Once a list has been nominated on this page for a minimum of two weeks, it will be removed from the list of featured lists if the consensus is to remove, and added to the list of former featured lists. All discussions will be logged at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/archive. 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. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions	Shortcut: WP:FLRC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures Featured lists ← Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds 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 (updates daily)
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, as well as any relevant WikiProjects.

Contents 1 Lists nominated for removal 1.1 Chicago Bears seasons 1.2 List of districts of India 1.3 Indian national cricket captains 1.4 IWGP Tag Team Championship

Lists nominated for removal

Chicago Bears seasons

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois, User:Happyman22 (original nominator), and about a dozen other editors who were leading editors at Chicago Bears, Chicago Bears seasons or members of the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Bears.

This list passed before the rules on FL tightened. Therefore there a major issue with a lack of refs in both the lead and the footnotes. I also feel there is a minor issue with having the 2008 season when it hasn't even started yet. BUC (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with BUC's assessment; in addition, I see several style issues that would need to be addressed, including incorrect use of dashes, links in the bold title, grammar and spelling errors, punctuation mistakes, etc.. The way the footnotes section is set up is not going to fly, either; it definitely needs true references. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you guys going after all the NFL team season lists Featured Lists or just this one. Why take away an honor from a list that was the first one to achieve the honor from the NFL articles? Also, the 2008 season starts in a few weeks so I do not see what is wrong with it being on the page. I think you guys need to leave the status quo. Worry about future lists not about the ones that were worked hard upon in the past, and that people do not have time to waste on making it "up to par" with new standards. If you want to fix the errors, fix them yourselves and also if you want to add more references go ahead. You can find all the references in any NFL history book or the NFL.com. The stats were not made up. Happyman22 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am planning to add in some refs when I can find the time. I don't think it's a waste of time to get a list up the FL standered. As for the current season, the norm for team season lists is only to have completed seasons. BUC (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The burden is not on the reviewers to maintain and update lists, unless of course they are normally one of the major editors of a particular list. The standards for FL have changed and, just like FAs, featured lists can lose their status if they are not maintained at the high quality expected by the reviewers. I know that, as a major editor of one featured list and several FL candidates, I have been doing my best to keep my lists up to snuff with new expectations within FLC. Don't feel targeted; these things happen. Rather, consider taking on this list as a project if you do not want to see it demoted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time, but it would be nice if someone else can do it. Happyman22 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you name a Seasons list that you feel is an exemplary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the best bet is to look for the most recently promoted season list. I'm not sure which one that is. I am fairly sure that in baseball, Boston Red Sox seasons is the most recently promoted list; however, it is a vastly different format from this list. As a reviewer, I've been picking up more and more of what's expected of the latest FLCs in sports (since those are the lists I review), and so I've been trying to maintain Philadelphia Phillies seasons by adding the new expectations. Since that list was originally modeled on this list, it might be a good jumping-off point. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So in this case, add a separate column for reference links; and add more into the prose. Quick look at the Footnotes, some of them can be omitted as they are mentioned in the Bears History article -- OR -- some are trivia. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a separate column for ref links, fix them up, and add more. I'll also work on grammar. RMelon (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me removing the current season? BUC (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. That line will be right there within a month anyways; so it wouldn't make a difference anyways. Plus, it is in italics - indicating that it is pending. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the NFL season articles in the last few mounths have had to remove the current season line to get to FL status. BUC (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me if it disappears. WP:CRYSTAL would agree. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed in Happyman's take-it-or-leave-it attitude. FLs, like FAs, are not some kind of life peerage; they need to be updated in terms of both their content and the modern standards we expect of FLCs. If an FL is left untended—an orphan, as it were—and the apparent guardian tells reviewers to fix it themselves, I think that's the death-knell for the FL. Tony (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cr 6, visual appeal: can someone change that glaring yellow in the table? Tony (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with a lighter color. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be a death-knell for the FL if I don't have time to edit the article. I am stepping away from Wikipedia here in a few days for many weeks because my life is getting busy to the point where editing isn't possible for me with my schedule. I would like for this article to remain a FL so that is why I throw it out there that others should help out and edit. If you don't have time either or if no one cares to edit it then sadly it will probably lose its status.

Peace out. Happyman22 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article is shaping up and I can now vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'll offer a conditional support at this time, as the progress is helping a lot. However, the duplicate reference that is used over and over again should be turned into one named reference rather than being copied and pasted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are two separate duplicate references (from 1971 on the refs are full season summary pages - I tried to break it up). How should I go about turning them into one named reference? Also, he BoSox list article has duplicate references in the same manner. I don't believe having them should dictate whether the list remains featured. RMelon (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The Red Sox seasons one only has one duplicate link, not one reference duplicated 20+ times like this list. Be that as it may, the way to do it is to name the reference on its first occurrence by changing the <ref> tag to <ref name="whatever">. Then, any time you want to use the reference, put the tag <ref name="whatever>/> with a slash, like that. Then it will be in the reflist only once and will show up with the same source multiple times. Different years are different sources, if you are using different years. The sources being used in this article (refs 17-27, 33-65, 67-71, 73-79) are all the exact same link. That's where the issue is. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of districts of India

FLR1 FLR2

Sadly, this is a third nomination for removal. There are several problems with this list, though.

1. The Lead is really short. It should at least talk about history a little. Something like when India decided to divide its states into districts.
2. The lead currently is unsourced.
3. The Officials section is unsourced, as well.
4. Tables should look like a Wikipedia table, i.e. use class=wikitable or even better use class=wikitable sortable.
5. The "Area" column should list the sq mi figures, as well. I think the {{convert}} template should be used here.
6. Headquarter(s) or Headquarters?
7. Many links get redirected to a totally different spelling. Maybe, they should be linked to an official spelling?
8. Some links go to disamg. pages.
9. Why Puducherry doesn't have any headquarters?
10. I couldn't figure out what info was taken from the "Official directory of all Indian districts" link.
11. The "statoids.com" link doesn't have density listed. Where did the density figures come from?

--Crzycheetah 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

density comes from population/area. silly question, really! --GDibyendu (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you verify that they're correct? There's no references that list those density figures. It violates WP:OR right now.--Crzycheetah 04:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to verify, you can pickup a few random rows and verify. I don't think using a simple formula like this can be WP:OR. --GDibyendu (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not too sure about WP:OR, but just to be safe, we should probably state that formula somewhere.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep – not a FLRC IMO, easily fixed in an hours work

1. I've boosted the lead by merging sections. Also added a few inline citations
2. SQ MI is optional. MOS:CONVERSIONS does not make it mandatory to have it, so does not fall under a FLRC. Although if anyone has the time and energy, they are most welcome to provide two extra columns for misup2; density.
3. Table colours are ok. See WP:FLC. GDibyendu has added the sorting feature and also corrected Headquarters
4. Puducherry and Mumbai City do not have any HQ as they are city districts.
5. Links that go to a dab page or redirect page are not a problem as long as they reach the intended article. It would be an inhuman effort to constantly monitor 1500 links to a page to see if they have been dabbed. Maybe a bot could be commissioned for this purposes. But it is not a FAC or FLC criteria.
6. Density is NOT OR. Density has an accepted formula that is population per area. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Lead still lacks info on the history of districts. When they were created? why? Currently, fails criterion #3.
2. MOS:CONVERSIONS states that "metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided". It says generally because there are some exceptions, but none of the exceptions apply to this list. Currently, fails criterion #5.
3. Any reason why there's a blue background in tables? It does not look appealing at all. Currently, fails criterion #6.
4. This page does not explain why Puducherry doesn't have any headquarters. Currently, fails criterion #3.
5. That's the problem, these pages do not reach the intended pages. They're not helpful at all. Currently, fails criterion #4.
6. That accepted formula should be mentioned in this page.

--Crzycheetah 09:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. There is not much on the history of districts. I added a one liner on the earliest law I could find.
2. Generally does not mean compulsorily. Only listing the metric units are perfectly acceptable due to widespread usage. I am not against having imperial units, but absence of imperial units does not violate the FA/FL criteria. If someone would be willing to add that column, please go ahead. NOT DONE
3. #3 allows suitable use of colour. What is not appealing to you is appealing to someone else. This is a personal choice, so am not changing it as the criteria allows us to use any (non gharish looking) colour.
4. Puducherry is now explained NOT DONE
5. Again a majority of links are working. A bot needs to check on the links. If you can provide an instance of bad link, we can look into it. No featured list criteria if the link is redirected. NOT DONE
6. It would be ludicrous to list the "accepted formula", but I've added the description of the column headers that should satisfy your objection. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. OK
2. It does violate the criteria as I already mentioned above.
3. All Wikipedia tables have gray background and use other colors used to indicate something. This isn't about personal preference; this is about Wikipedia's preference.
4. OK
5. Try this
6. OK

--Crzycheetah 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken care of the dab fixes. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:R2D. No policy is violated as per that link. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I did and I noticed that, per that link, the redirects in this list should be fixed. See the second exception.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this is not enough for deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone wants to delete this page.--Crzycheetah 06:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Criterion 2: Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."
  • The lead is manifestly inadequate in this respect. I'm left not knowing who appoints or elects whom, whether districts are locally managed rather like counties or councils in other countries, and what services and governance they're responsible for. Can they be sacked by the central or state government? The two little paragraphs there at the moment are totally inadequate. Tony (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Cr 6, visual appeal: the second and third columns are HUGE, leaving acres of white space and making the table more horizontal than necessary; those with small monitors suffer. Tony (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian national cricket captains

previous FLC (17:29, 24 November 2005)

There are mostly minor issues here, but the number of them is quite big.

• Too many single years are linked
• Too many links to India national cricket team
• The note about " a dagger (†)" should be placed better
• In sub-section Test match captains, the table heading is "Indian Test match captains", which is redundant. This goes to most subsections.
• The column "played" needs an explanation. Why teams play each other more than once in one year?
• Do we really need "total" row for captains, who played only one team?
• "Includes one Tied Test Match" needs an explanation. What's the difference between a tied match and a drawn match?
• The "Asian Test Championship" note shows that India played first in India, then in Sri Lanka, but the Championship was held in Bangladesh.
• In Records and highlights subsections, there is uncited information throughout the page.
• Footnotes should be separated from the citations in the References section.

--Crzycheetah 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

These are all very easy to correct. For deletion review see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a deletion process. Your link is irrelevant. --Crzycheetah 06:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove unless improved.

• "this list"—The list, please, which is grammatically better and avoids iss iss.
• "of Men's cricket, Women's cricket and Youth cricket"—why the caps? MoS breach. Please remove two instances of "cricket".
• MoS breach in "1960/1" and numerous others: the closing year must be two or four digits. En dashes required for year ranges at the bottom. Single years shouldn't be linked: I'll fix the last issue now.
• Remove the thousands of percentage signs in the final column, since the key at the top clearly announces "%". Easier to read, then.
• Remove "percentage": "the highest percentage win rate (56%)".

Look, the text needs a thorough audit. It's worth saving. Can we gather together a team of people to call on when Indian sports lists come up for review? Is there an appropriate WikiProject we can lean on? Tony (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Can someone inform me soon if the date script I've run has caused any problems? And revert if so. Looks OK to me. Tony (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The intro is very skewed.

• Why two lines about the "seven Tests before 1947", and the 1947 tour, which are irrelevant/unimportant for the article.
• Putting 1983 and 1999-U19 in the same line is a bit of a joke (there was also another U-19 win in 2007 and a U-15 in 1996, by the way)
• You can't unhesitatingly call 1983 the greatest success because there are Test wins, for eg, 1971 and 2001 which are extremely important. Tintin 06:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IWGP Tag Team Championship

Note: Notified are WikiProject Professional wrestling. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am nominating this page because of the reliable sourcing criteria. Most of the sources the page relies on, "Strong Style Spirit" seems to be rather questionable. Please note that a similar list, IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship, was recently delisted for largely the same reason. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, what if the source was changed to the company's official list as the primary source? Nikki311 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That's in Japanese though, and it does not help people who do not read the language (and I would assume that this would refer to the majority of English wiki users). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Then couldn't they put it through some sort of translator? I think as long as it's reliable and accurate, the language it's in is pretty superfluous. --MarcK 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A bit of prose massaging to do, such as "In addition to Japan, it has also been defended in the United States and Mexico" (spot the redundant word).
• "United States" should generally not be linked. See MOSLINK.
• Cr 2: the lead seems like an inadequate entree into the list. Double or triple the size, please?
• Please remove the colons from the column titles. Tony (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments! Prose tightened and lead lengthened. Nikki311

I'm going to notify the WikiProject that I'll be closing this FLRC soon. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)