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 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 (updates daily) FL Cleanup listing (updated by WolterBot) Article stats script
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.

Lists nominated for removal

List of Sweden international footballers

Fails Cr. 1, 2, 3 and maybe 6. Let's go down the failed criteria in more detail:

1. Prose Not much to say here as there is hardly any prose at all, but what is there is hardly professional; the first sentence is rather fragmented and doesn't flow, and last sentence is very vague and is not even a sentence.
2. Lead The most pressing issue, the lead doesn't provide any context or background at all. Compare to List of Sweden international footballers, which is at Featured list candidates right now. It simple needs more expansion. In addition, FLs no longer start "This is a list of...".
3. Comprehensiveness Once again, compare to the German footballer list. There is no context or background at all. I think the table is rather underused in terms of useful information.

6.Visual appeal The key is not in a place that is helpful to readers. Color accompanied with symbols would help.

• Needs inline citations also, and has a bit of POV language (the caption: "Henrik Larsson, one of the most prominent goalscorers", "Fredrik Ljungberg, the current captain, is one of the most important players of the national team").

In sum, this list needs a lot of work to meet current standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Australia 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 India 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)
    • So should List of Australian ODI cricketers be "List of Australia ODI cricketers"? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 08:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, I may have spoken too soon; it appears that this *is* supposed to be ethnic/national? Like saying the Russian Olympic team, the Australian national cricket team, etc. However, I note that that article is at Australia national cricket team. So in that case, yes, the better option would probably be to say "List of Australia ODI cricketers". IMO, we need to avoid demonyms in title and category names as much as possible. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Generally, people representing national cricket teams such as for example Australia are Australian, however non-Australians can qualify to play through residency for x amount of years or an Austrlian passport and I think there are probably some other loopholes. Due to this, the lists are being universally moved to, taking an example, List of Australia ODI cricketers rather an Austrlian. Nev1 (talk) 18:49, 22 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)

Striking delist, but not yet voting keep. --Golbez (talk) 02:09, 30 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)

Also, I have to ask what the utility of the prominence column is. Its source is a single unsourced site, and I don't know how it really helps with elevation. Prominence is useful for the specific peaks, but not for the state as a whole. --Golbez (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Prominence is a common measure of the overall impressiveness of a mountain (at least in WP:WikiProject Mountains. Just because Kansas' high point is 4000'+ doesn't mean it is impressive: it has a tiny prominence. I think this is a useful fact to provide to readers. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's not the prominence of Kansas. That's the prominence of the high point of Kansas. That Kansas' high point is 4000ft matters in relation to the other states; its prominence does not. This is not a list of the "highest prominences in each of the United States". This is a list of the highest points. Kansas tops out at 4000ft; that that point is only 6 feet or whatever above the next highest is 100% irrelevant to this list. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you: that thought occurred to me when someone added prominence to the list. However, I can see why they did this: this list really should be List of U.S. state extreme elevations, because is collecting information about the extreme elevation points for each state. If we delete the prominence column, someone may very well reconstruct the list in another article, and then we'll have copied data that goes out of sync.

What do editors think of renaming the list? hike395 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Delist - Lead is small and does not comply with Cr 1&2.--S_RX 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)

It looks good. Though, I removed the non common-used names.—Chris! _ct 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I get a few boxes in the table showing as merged, even across rows, something wrong with the formatting? They also show as blank.

I think the imperial and metric columns should be merged, with metric in brackets. Would look better and easier to read and have no effect on sorting.

• Currently working on it at User:Millbrooky/Sandbox3. It does have an effect on sorting, because the autosort doesn't recognize the output of the convert template as numeric. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead doesn't follow WP:Lead, it should be rewritten, not in bullet points, maximum 4 paragraphs, and give a general intro to the topic, not just stats.

Done. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer saying is out of date when up to date info is available fails comprehensive.

I respectfully disagree: there is disagreement between the main sources of topographic information --- USGS provides elevations in the 1929 datum, while the National Geodetic Survey provides them in 1988. The main source for this article provided them in 1929, although a few editors have updated some of the entries to 1988.

No general ref nor cites for the info (at least not in an easy to find place).

Where do you suggest putting the ref? I'm happy to place it in a better spot. hike395 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall, i think this needs to much work, and i vote strong removal , and renomination after improvment.Yobmod (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delist Needs many more references. Reywas92^Talk 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How can it? The table has 2 sources and we're probably going to drop one of them because one editor objects to including prominence.

I'm getting a sense that people want to delist this because they don't like the list, perhaps because of simplicity of the subject matter? That's ok with me: I did not nominate the list to begin with. But I would prefer to work on improving the list in rational ways. hike395 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I love the list and I hope it can stay featured; it's really interesting and well made. But with only two references it simply does not pass the FL criteria. The two it does use are not properly formatted. I realize the census PDF has the entire list, but more can always be added to cross-reference. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

____

Done: I (and other editors) tried to address all of the issues raised, above:

• A 4 paragraph lede was written, with no bullet items
• Columns were cited as to source
• All citations use proper citation templates
• Common names were used for Mount McKinley and Mauna Kea
• Rounding was performed using convert template, sorting preserved
• Prominences removed from table
• Metric and imperial columns were combined (thanks, Millbrooky!)
• Additional backup citation found in EL (I'll look for more), and specific citations for individual highpoints (when a more accurate source was found).

Given that we've addressed all of the issues, I hope that we can Keep this list as featured. hike395 (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The notion that this article should be delisted is quite wrong in my view. The subject is of enduring interest to many people.

The article will continually attract additional editors who will make various improvements, a process that could continue indefinitely, but not if it's delisted by one or two people who simply don't care about the topic. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep As a person interested in geodetics and and geography in general I find this list to be well researched and of interest. The fact that it is difficult to find reliable documentation in some cases is by itself of interest. I don't think that the list itself is of great intrinsic value but the fact that it is wikified makes it of value. Each high point is linked to an article where more information can be found. The fact that it is a work in progress adds to its value rather than detracts from it in my own opinion. --DRoll (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep There appears to be strong interest in improving this list, significant improvements have already been made, and the material is useful and interesting. Parts of the list that do not conform with standards can be tagged like any other Wikipedia article; at this point delisting seems like a "nuclear" solution. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the proposal. Is it to delist this article or to remove it from some obscure list of lists? I further don't understand why one would want to delist this article. It is a perfectly fine list, quite similar to others I've seen published elsewhere, and contains many verifiable references, etc.

As for the list of lists, I don't understand what that is, or why it matters, but this list seems as good as any other list.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion here (and I just fell into this myself) is that this is a discussion about delisting the featured status of this list, not eliminating the list altogether. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S., a caveat about the claims of "most rugged": while elevation change could be considered a substantial contributing factor to "ruggedness", relatively flat areas may also be "rugged"; large parts of Wyoming, centered around Craters of the Moon National Monument, are incredibly rugged and also relatively flat. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A featured status of a list can be taken away if it fails to fulfill the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The result of this process is not going to lead to deletion.—Chris! _ct 04:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As Chris points out, the discussion is about whether the list fulfills the featured list criteria. Collectively, we've made numerous edits to the page (summarized above). After these edits, does the list fufill the criteria? I think so. Golbez thinks so (he struck out his "delist", above). Presumably Pgagnon99 & Calamitybook think so? (yes? no?). Any other opinion? hike395 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken out my delist, but a little longer lead would be nice. Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No; I don't think it's quite there yet. I agree that content is lacking; there also need to be work in the lead that justifies the importance of the material. Although this is a list, you have but to compare its quality to that of a featured article to see that it isn't up to par.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since a featured list is not a featured article, I don't think that comparison is fair.—Chris! _ct 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it barely fulfill the criteria, so I am leaning toward keep, though a longer lead would be good.—Chris! _ct 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)