Removing featured lists in Wikipedia This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable. The FLC director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, 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 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:
Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:
Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period as featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily. A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the |
Featured list tools:
Toolbox |
Nomination procedure
|
Nominations for removal
List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University
This list was promoted back in 2008 along with a few other "List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with X" lists I might bring here to WP:FLRC later. The reason I'm bringing it here is that I don't think it satisfies WP:FLCR 3(c) (In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
), particularly when it comes to the WP:LISTCRITERIA.
Nobel Prizes are not awarded to universities, but to individuals. Universities have an interest in claiming Nobel laureates and Prizes as "theirs"—it's a matter of prestige—but that's simply not how the Nobel Prizes work. This is not like the Olympics where the athletes formally represent their countries, and there is no generally agreed-upon way to assign credit for Nobel Prizes/laureates to universities.
When this question, i.e. how is "affiliated with" judged?
was brought up by Testing times in 2008 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive1, the nominator Sephiroth BCR replied It ranges from the University of Chicago, which considers any laureate that walked on the campus to be an affiliated laureate to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which only considers members of the faculty that did their research for their Nobel Prize while at the university. Whatever the university considers "affiliated" is what we're going to use, as anything else 1) would be a WP:V problem 2) would be a WP:OR problem as we would be creating our own system of what constitutes affiliation.
That's fair, I suppose, but it means that lists for different universities aren't directly comparable to each other.
I suspect that it was to solve this problem of corresponding lists for different universities not being comparable that the criteria were changed back in 2018—to create a set of lists that all consistently use the same criteria. The intention was good and it may have even been a good idea, but the implementation was unfortunately misguided. The problem is that the effort to come up with criteria that could be applied consistently across all these lists ended up producing a set of criteria that was created by Wikipedia's editors, not by WP:Reliable sources. In other words, the criteria themselves are the result of WP:Original research. Consequently, applying these criteria produces novel content. Not helping matters is the fact that the de facto modus operandi was tracking down laureates' CVs and then applying these WP:OR criteria to determine whether someone should count as affiliated with a particular university or not.
This resulted in us recently having a very long AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation) and then a very long DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 21) followed by further discussion on the relevant talk page (Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation), with the eventual outcome being scrapping the WP:OR set of criteria and rewriting List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation from scratch with an entirely different approach that is used by the official Nobel Prize website. This list, i.e. List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University, still uses the WP:OR set of criteria however. So what we currently have here is a subpage to a defunct version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation.
We recently delisted another of these lists, see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1. One of the reasons we did so was the issue of the criteria for the list. My suggestion would be to delist this as well and redirect it to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delist As the main editor on most of the Princeton University pages (at least when I have the time), I'd have to agree with the reasons per above. While the Wikipedia editors' attempt from the past was certainly noble, it was WP:Original research. Moreover, if we're going to delist the University of Pennsylvania article, it would seem reasonable to do the same here for both points raised in that AfD and those by the nom here. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
List of vice presidents of the Philippines
- Notified: Klbrain, Howard the Duck, WP Tambayan Philippines, WP Politics
Has 9 inline citations, of which only two are actually sources, the rest are notes. The formatting in the age section needs some serious reworking, and most of the unofficial presidents need further explanation as to the circumstances that led them to get that classification. Top contributor not notified, as they were checkuser-blocked years ago. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- No contest. This list has a good run and I'm no longer interested in keeping this at FL standards. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd move for this to be speedily closed and delisted unless someone wants to put in the work. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment -- I can attempt to resolve the issues, as this list has potential to meet the FL criteria. However, it does have a few issues. Before making any bold changes, I want to ask what is the use of "By age", "Oldest living vice presidents of the Philippines", and "Timeline of living vice-presidents" sections? Most of these sections appear to be WP:OR. Recently, a few lists, including Living presidents of the United States, List of presidents of India by longevity, etc. have been deleted. So, I think that these sections can boldly be removed from the list. @Hog Farm, will that be fine? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: - I think some of those were merged in through AFDs. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm – Yeah, they were indeed merged in this list, but these sections still is full of original research. I have reformatted the main list, and am in process of adding citations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: - I think some of those were merged in through AFDs. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update (November 18, 2021)
I have boldly removed list of vice presidents by (1) age (2) longest/oldest living (3) timeline, as all of these lists are indiscriminate collection of trivial lists. Anyone who disagrees is free to apply WP:BRD. As for the main list, I have reformatted the list, and have added various sources for all the vice presidents. If the structure and sourcing appears fine, I can do the same for "Unofficial vice presidents". The work remaining to do:
- Reformatting the lead section, and adding references there.
- Adding ALT text to images.
- Reformatting and adding context to the "Unofficial vice presidents" section.
- Other general fixes like correcting some information, fixing the wording and prose, misc.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Update (November 24, 2021)
Most of the reformatting things have been done. ALT text is added. The only issues left are:
- Sources and copy-edit of the lead.
- Some context in the "Unofficial vice presidents" section. Will do both soon.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
List of Carnivàle episodes
This 2007 promotion is not anywhere close to the standards that would be expected today. The location notes material is riddled with original research, and there may be other issues with problematic content, as well (I've never seen the show). Hog Farm Talk 05:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- Another issue is that under the current criteria of MOS:TV, this likely should not be a standalone list, and should likely be merged back to the base TV series article. So I support delisting it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- In that case, maybe a merge discussion would be more appropriate. I think the list is salvageable with a few tweaks (mainly removing the location notes and trimming some of the summaries), but it probably isn't long enough to justify its own list. For what it's worth, List of awards and nominations received by Carnivàle (also an FL) might also be worthy of a merge, maybe even more than the episode list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Since discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I would move to delist. If it doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone list, it fails FLCR #3C. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delist - the original research concerns have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1984 Summer Olympics medal table
I am nominating this for featured list removal for a few glaring, but probably easily addressable, issues:
- Complete lack of information on the fact that Russia and other countries boycotted these Olympics, which is the primary reason that the USA and other countries were so successful. The boycott's impact on the medal table is a crucial detail that should have its own section.
- There is almost no discussion about medal records, outside of the USA. Other countries set records, especially due to the boycott.
- More recent versions of this type of list (2016 Summer Olympics medal table) identify "Changes in medal standings" as a section. This should be explored in this article as well.
- More recent versions of this type of list (2020 Summer Olympics medal table) provides maps showing medal distribution across the globe. These would be very helpful here.
- References need to be beefed up.
- The lead is quite lite, especially in comparison to current FLC standards. More should be added, especially after the details above are added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given that the 1984 Summer Olympics are my favorite edition of the Olympics and I've recently helped promote the 2012 Summer Olympics (which are my second favorite Olympics) to featured list status, I can help save this list from demotion. However, I do not know how to make a map for the medal distribution. Therefore, I will need help on that front. Nevertheless, I'll try since I don't plan on promoting a new FLC until December.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello! I was told to visit this page and provide my rationale for keeping an updated version of the article. So, there we go:
- 1) Current version mentions Soviet boycott but instead of simply saying that the USSR did not participate, it presents Soviet government's stated reasons for boycott (that are universally questioned) as fact. As 1984 Summer Olympics boycott states, there're many versions, and the most probable of them is retaliation for the 1980 boycott. Other suggested stricter doping controls etc.
- 2) Current version fails to mention the record nature of USA’s performance, namely their 83 gold medals. 1980 Summer Olympics medal table notably mentions Soviet records.
- 3) The current version erroneously credits West Germany with 59 gold medals instead of 59 total medals
- 4) Current version fails to note the record-breaking nature of Romania's performance, namely their second-best total of 20 gold medals.
- An updated version fixes all that. Sorry for using that stupid dynamic IP, I know that creating an account makes your edits more trustworthy.109.197.205.158 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello! I was told to visit this page and provide my rationale for keeping an updated version of the article. So, there we go:
- Comment: Given that I am attending a funeral today, I won't be able to work on this until at least Monday.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Summary of changes
This section will enumerate the changes that have so far been done to the list. I will update this as I complete a major task.
- Added new table to "Changes in medal standings" which is modeled after the 2012 Summer Olympics medal table. It includes summary of the redistribution of medals, which athletes were affected, and a brief explanation of what happened in each case. Furthermore, another table was added to show how the medals re-allocations affected the medal tally.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Replaced all the images with the new ones because most of the old ones were derived from sources whose links give me an error message. Thus the old images would most likely not follow fair use rules
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I'm currently making changes to this list on User:Birdienest81/sandbox twenty-three. I'm currently working on the paragraph explaining ties by adding more sources since the original one is too highly dependent on one source. So, I am adding a few more newspaper resources. I should be able to get a little bit more done since my FLC for the 1984 Oscars is winding down, and I don't plan to do another FLC until at least early October.
- --Birdienest81talk 08:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's definitely looking better. Please ping me when you feel like everything has been addressed and I will give it another thorough review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I've transferred a better quality version of this list from the sandbox I was using to edit the article. I've added more citations, and rearranged sentences for better flow. I've added a sentence and two sources regarding the boycott and it's impact. My biggest problem is doing a map of the medals because I cannot download the software to make the map since the computer I am using is not my own and I need an administrator to download it. If someone is willing to make a map for me, that would be great. By the way, I've highly modeled this list similar to the 2012 Summer Olympics medal table, which is the most recent Olympics medal table to be promoted to featured list status. I may not be able to do more editing until at least after September 23.
- --Birdienest81talk 08:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Comments
Thanks for your changes Birdienest81. This is looking much better. I went through and performed a copyedit, rescued some links and added a photo. Just a few more comments I see:
- All photos should have alt text
- Fixed: Added alt text to Kōji Gushiken's photo and slightly modified the alt for the LA Coliseum photo.
- You usually don't need references in photo captions so long as the article is sourced and supports the statements in the caption
- The only reason why there are references in many of the captions because according to ChrisTheDude, there should be references to any content in the captions that is not explicitly covered within the body of article (i.e. each individual gold medal accomplishments).
- I would drop the last three links in the External Links section. The first link is really the only legitimate "External Link".
- Fixed:Removed the last three links.
Thanks « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: - I've addressed your three comments from up above.
- --Birdienest81talk 07:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Birdienest81, I have no additional comments. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- --Birdienest81talk 07:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Quick comments –
Medal table: "Four silvers medals (and no bronze) were awarded men's vault gymnastics competition." Should be "silver" with "in the" before "men's vault".Note a: "The Soviet Union then broke that record in 1980, where it won 80 gold medals." "where" → "when" because the year is not a place.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: - I've addressed both issue listed above and made the necessary corrections.
- --Birdienest81talk 08:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment
It looks like most of the issues have been cleared up, except for the first one: that the list does not mention the Soviet boycott. I understand from reading above that the reason behind the boycott is less straightforward than one might expect, and we have a whole article about it, but I'd still expect this list to have a sentence or two that the boycott existed and which countries did not participate as a result. --PresN 14:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- PresN, it looks like an IP removed the part that had been added about the boycott [1]. I agree and would withhold my support of closing this WP:FLRC until the boycott is explained in this article. The reasons that it occurred can be debated, its impact can be generalized, but it needs to be mentioned. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: I restored the statement regarding the Soviet-led boycott and its effect on the medal count. Some IP removed it because they felt that the statement did not support the claim that the boycott heavily favored the US. Well, clearly the USA was the primary beneficiary of the boycott. I agree that Romania also got some advatage, but US remained the primary party to gain from the boycott.
- --Birdienest81talk 08:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, at this point it is just the bare minimum. I still think there is more to add. You could link List of Olympic Games boycotts and add more context including about the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott. I mean there is a whole article on the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott. This is why I said originally there should be a separate section about the boycott in this article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- --Birdienest81talk 08:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Update
- @Gonzo fan2007:I've adding a map representing the medal results for the 1984 Summer Olympics colored by the highest achieved medal for each nation. It is similar to the 2012 Summer Olympics medal results map. As for further revisions such as the Russia boycott and effects, I am busy studying for an exam, and the earliest I can get back to this is on November 9.
- --Birdienest81talk 10:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)