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 FLC directors—Dabomb87, iMatthew or The Rambling Man—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 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.

[edit] Lists nominated for removal

[edit] List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality

Notified: WP:MILHIST, British military history task force, myself..., User:Ranger Steve, User:Anthony Staunton

This may seem odd, but as the original developer of this list, I am nominating this for featured list removal. Simply put, it does not meet the standards for comprehensiveness (3.) or accuracy at the moment. When I developed it I used the original structure of the list that was moved over from Mike Chapman's website (see VC migration project for background) and used that basis for nationality. For a long time I have considered the issues surrounding nationality: what defines nationality, particularly given the difficulties surrounding British Empire recipients: for example a soldier could be born in India, fight for the "British Empire" within a British Indian Army unit commanded by British Army officers and then settle down somewhere else in the Empire; it gets complicated.

Discussions have started regarding how to define the nationality of recipients and how to categorise them at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Manx_VC. Until the results of those discussions are implemented and we have a well-defined basis for these lists in terms of categorising nationalities, I don't think it should retain its status as "exemplifying Wikipedia's best work." Regards, Woody (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Woody and congratulate him on having the integrity to request that the article be delisted now problems have emerged with the sources. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not quite sure what is going on. Is this one of those procedural FLRCs, where it's already been decided that the list doesn't meet the FL criteria and this list must be delisted, or should I expect tangible improvements during this period. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• More procedural. There are a number of large-scale changes needed to made that require a wider consensus to put through onto the article. Discussing how to define nationality and then instigating that will take longer than 2 weeks. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the heads up Woody. I think there is an issue with the definition of nationality currently used for these lists, which obviously has a lot to do with this list in particular. But personally I don’t want to see a featured article get delisted because of it. As the issue we need to discuss is directly related to improving this article I’d prefer to discuss and implement, and skip the delisting bit (My comment on the Manx VC discussion was more concerned with the need to discuss this soon rather than a threat to the article). That said I am obviously concerned by the duplications in this list, so if it is likely to take some time to debate the issue then perhaps FLRC is best if that is the consensus. But I’d rather use it as a impetus to come to an agreement on the matter and make the necessary changes. I’d like to think we could do it in 2 weeks (or a little bit more), but I accept we might not….. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PS... doesn't help much in my hope above, but I'm afraid I'll probably be offline for the next week while I move home. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If a list is actively undergoing improvements, the FLRC can be kept open for much longer than two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The trouble at the moment is that I am extremely busy in real life and not really on Wikipedia at the moment. For me it is less about the duplication in the list, than it is about the mis-categorisation. The duplication is a by-product of that. Every recipient in this list needs to be checked against sources and against an as-yet undecided set of nationality criteria. If we can get the criteria sorted then I think this list can be worked on and kept. Woody (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the categorisation is the issue that needs sorting out (but the duplication is the most obvious by-product that causes me concern). I would prefer us to be tackling the categorisation first, and I'm happy to try and do as much as I can on it. Like Woody though, I'm going to be off-wiki for a bit, and I'm afraid I don't actually have any books on the VC.... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Formula One drivers

Notified: WikiProject Formula One, User:Piniricc65, User:Schumi555, User:DH85868993 and User:Treki

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current FL criteria. In particular, it lacks an introduction or lead, with random facts mixed with table information where there should be a lead (criterion 2). The tables are not sortable (criterion 4). It has several non-compliances with the MOS, including the use of italics for general text, hyphens instead of endashes (criteria 5). The referencing is substandard—they are merely non-formated external links at the end, without any inline citation, even where particular claims are being made in the lead. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove – Many factors cause this list to not meet modern standards:

• Seems short on references. The lead is uncited, as are the footnotes.
• I'm really uncertain about the reliability of the general references. The one reference that I would consider reliable (GrandPrix.com) links to the site's front page; I don't see how that is going to verify anything in the list.
• The lead could stand to be expanded a bit, in addition to being cited where necessary.
• A key could be added with information on what the color means, replacing the sentence in the lead. This should include a note on linked years going to articles on F1 seasons, to avoid possible confusion.
  • Done.
• Bolding should no longer be used to amplify table text. If it needs accentuation, use italics instead.
  • Done.
• Agree with Arsenik on the MoS points and potential for sorting.
  • Endashes are half done and will be finished this weekend. See below for sorting.
• An image for the lead would be nice. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Done

I agree with all of the above. I'm about to nominate a list myself, and I'm determined to get cracking on my sandbox today, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Could we keep this open until about Monday? WFCforLife (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Following on from my earlier comments, here is what I plan to do.

• I'll work on the lead from the information that's in this list, although members of WP:F1 will need to reference it.
• I'll sort out the other MoS points.
• I'll add a picture, and obviously sort out the alt text on it etc.

However, I'm not totally sold on the sorting. Criteria 4 does only mandates sorting where it is helpful. I'd question whether removing the alphabetical headings in favour of a huge, consolidated, extremely slow to sort table would "help". WFCforLife (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying this list is utterly useless without a sort function, but it provides very little value. At current, it shows a bunch of names and the associated statistics (which should be available on each drivers page anyway). That's fine, but what becomes interesting is if the reader can start using this table to compare drivers. With a sort function, it becomes easy to make a list of drivers by starts, points, first season (chronology) etc. I would even recommend putting the flagicons so the reader can sort by nationality. By sorting twice (for instance, first by starts and then by country), the reader can establish which are the most active drivers from a country. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In principle I agree with all of that (I certainly will be giving nationality its own colum), but the list is already 167kb long. Once the lead is rewritten, the references brought up to scratch and sort keys added, it would easily be 180kb, probably more. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether we should consider splitting the drivers in a more useful way than the alphabetical division, or even if we should consider splitting this list altogether, in a similar way to Gillingham F.C. here, here and here. I'm not irrevocably opposed to making this into one giant sortable table, but given that we already have a list of List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions and List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, I do think it's reasonable to challenge this. Perhaps the way to go is to keep this as one list, but sort the drivers by nationality rather than letter of surname? WFCforLife (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the sorting, I've edited the Z section to demonstrate what I believe would be necessary for a sortable table. A sort function of some sort would help, and for that reason I will continue working on it (although I'm going to keep them divided by surname for now). But I'm yet to be convinced that a giant table is the way to go. If a compelling case is made that the benefit of a giant sortable table outweighs the signficant problems that a 150KB sortable table poses to readers I may change my opinion.

I know this is somewhat irrelevant, but I would like to make the point that my alternative proposal (divide by nationality) would actually involve more work. Turning 26 sortable tables into one bigger one isn't difficult, whereas going from alphabetical order to nationality would take ages. But I believe for accessibility reasons its an alternative we should consider. WFCforLife (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian provinces and territories by population

Notified WikiProject Canada and User:Miss Madeline

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the criteria. Criterion 1 is not met, since I can spot several flow and style issues. The entire lead is unreferenced, despite making several claims (such as only NWT having a drop in population etc.) Also, the article starts with the archaic "this is a list of..." and breaches the MOS, for instance by wikilinking years (criterion 5). Images lack proper alt-texts (criterion 5b). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Canadian provinces and territories by area

Notified WikiProject Canada and User:Miss Madeline

Honestly, I don't think this list meet any of the FL-criteria. It has no significant text, so criterion 1 has nothing to be based on. It lacks a lead (and starts with "this is a list of..."), failing criterion 2. Okay, it is not comprehensive, lacking any explanatory text (criterion 3). It is not sortable (criterion 4) and it lacks alt-texts (criterion 5b). I will admit it is stable. The main concern is that it has one reference (not cited in-line), and makes several pretty bombastic claims (the world's largest, second-largest and fourth-largest country) without reference, and mentions how water is counted (without any sourcing). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - clearly doesn't meet the FL criteria—Chris!_c/t 22:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - while the list is aesthetically attractive, it certainly no longer meets the current, more stringent FL criteria. It was, after all, passed in 2006. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)

Notified: WP:RECORD CHARTS and User:Efe

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list is not verifiable. Please check the external links with the tool on the right side of this text. This page does not meet basic Wikipedia guideline, let alone a featured list criteria. I realize that all dead links come from the Billboard website and can be fixed easily. The main reason I am making this nomination is to expedite the fixing because these links are dead since August 2009. Cheetah (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm recusing from closing this, since I reviewed the article when it was at FLC. Now, as a reviewer, isn't this a concern that could have been resolved on the talk page first? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be ignored on the talk page. Here, the motivation to improve the page is higher.--Cheetah (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but FLRC is usually more effective when the list has many problems, rather than just one issue; you could have at least notified the primary contributor and WikiProject about the problem first. Anyway, since we're here, hopefully somebody will find the time to fix the dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)