Knowledge (XXG)

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 22 April 2009 .

Notified: WikiProject Swimming, YellowMonkey.

Unless I am missing something, this article has three citations and no general refs. One is the Olympic medal database, which only covers the one statement about Kirsty Coventry (although it really doesn't because the IOC database is complex and people have to fiddle around with it). One is a link to a book which confirms that Ian Thorpe is the youngest male recipient. The third is supposedly an article called "Swimmers of the Year" when in reality it is about a single winner. The ref does not confirm most the statements that it is cited for.

So with those three citations, that means the rest of the article is completely unsourced and has no references. -- Scorpion 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

somehow the main ref went walkabout. It's back. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While we are here there are some more things that should be brought up to scratch. I have fixed up the references which were in a bit of a state, but the tables in this list should really be sortable, which will require all the names being converted into {{sortname}}. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to work on saving this. I have carefully added some more images (i.e. only obviously free ones so an image review shouldn't be necessary). I've fixed any DABs, I'm going to work on adding sortability to the page now. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay after a very tedious job, all the tables are now sortable. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 00:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice job so far, it looks better already. -- Scorpion 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the lead could be expanded, but overall I think this will be in keep territory before too long. I'll see if I can provide some help in the next few days. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I suggest the lead be expanded, and a general reference be made.--Truco 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• If YM or any WP:SWIM members are going to be involved in the fixing up of this FL, then the list may have to be delisted.--Truco 02:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks better, but I would contact Scorpion to see his if his initial thought has changed.--Truco 02:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not that bad, suggest adding a level two header on top off all the level three's.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - it appears as though YM has retired. :/ —Ed 17 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, he "returned".--Truco 19:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Adding more talk about the stats. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Much better. I won't withdraw this FLRC so others can comment, but it might as well be closed next Tuesday. -- Scorpion 13:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Further comments

• Ref 2 should be made into a general ref.
• Seek a copyedit of the prose.--Truco 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I tweaked the prose a while back, and the lead looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• I didn't add it, but I think a case can be made for leaving ref 2 as it is. Having a specific ref with multiple backlinks will more easily show exactly what is cited and where. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I did copyedit myself YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, sorry that comment was just based without looking at the prose. It looks fine to me, Keep.--Truco 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Went to do a copy-editing pass a while back, but didn't find much. With the changes that have been made by everyone here, I think this should remain featured. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep I made whatever changes I needed to long back. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - good work from Rambo's Revenge and everyone else—Chris! _ct 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by Gimmetrow 04:35, 19 April 2009 .

Notified:WP Awards and prizes, WP BBC, WP Television and Sunderland06

Review Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs)

1. The entire Past finalists section is unreferenced except for 2004, 2006 and 2008. Comment - All of the competitions years are covered by the general references.
2. The list is also redundant because it has the winners at the top and again in the past finalists section. Comment - The past finalists section is an overview of all of the competitions past finalists, it highlights the winners for ease, rather than the reader having to refer to the above section.
3. The prose section is also very short relative to the article's scope. Comment - I've expanded this slightly in relevance to the list.

Did you bring these concerns up on the talk page first? Most of these are issues that can be fixed without a formal review first. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Did it now. Is this usually what should be done?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Since we are here, we might as well keep the FLR open. Significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects should be notified. I will take care of that. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep Comments

• There needs to be a symbol to accompany the color. Done - added † symbol.
• What makes http://www.musicweb-international.com/sandh/2008/Jan-Jun08/bbcym_comp2.htm a reliable source? Done - Replced with different reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be a space between the dagger symbol and the item. Done - Removed space.
• Could you link the instrument names? Comment - Done some for now, I'm just wondering if you mean every link, or just some, before I can continue.
• Can you red link the notable unlinked person's names?
• No need to link music in the lead. Done - Delinked.
• "EMCY" Spell this out. Done - Spelt out.
• "The BBC Young Musician of the Year is a televised national music competition, broadcast on BBC Two and BBC Four biennially, and hosted by the British Broadcasting Corporation."-->The BBC Young Musician of the Year is a televised national music competition. It is broadcast on BBC Two and BBC Four biennially, and hosted by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Done - Changed to that.
• "Its first winner was Michael Hext playing the Trombone."-->Michael Hext, a trombonist, was the inaugural winner. Done - Changed to that.
• "Currently, the competition has five " Done - Removed "Currently".
• "Moore also holds the title for the youngest winner of the competition aged 12."-->Moore also holds the title for the youngest winner of the competition, at age 12. Done - Changed.
• "and is still permitted for use nowaday" Done - Removed "nowaday".
• The only other thing that worries me is the total dependence on the primary source. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My issues have been resolved. I suppose the primary source issue can't be helped, although I wish some reliable third party sources were added for back-up. I think this is in keep territory. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You should mention that the ceremony takes place every two years. didn't know what "biennially" means.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• The structure is inconsistent (Some years have a lead and some not, all years should have a lead or something about them). Comment - There are only leads for the years that have info available, removing it for consistency would be sacrificing comprehensiveness.
• The symbol † usually means that the person died, which isn't the case in most of them. Dabomb87 I don't see why a symbol is necessary.
  • The symbol doesn't have that specific meaning on WP. The symbol is needed to accompany the color per WP:COLOR. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Can it be something else than a cross? It means death in Christianity: Symbols_of_death#Religious_symbols_of_death and symbolizes the death date of a person in Books. Why isn't it a * or #---Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • There is no reason to change it, but I don't care either way. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• You should indicate class winners, because most of them are notable and have their articles on wikipedia. Comment I think this would just lead to confusion, and clutter up the list.
• All sources are from the BBC. Add some out of universe sources like time magazine or new york times or something. Comment - I've changed two references, it isn't solely dependant on the BBC sources now.

Hope you address these issues.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- The article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done this now. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The only other thing I see that stands out is the shading for the winner in the finalists section, the shading/shadowing should only be on the person's name, since the symbol states that it refers to the person.--Truco 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Image comment – File:BBC Young Musician of the Year logo.jpg needs to be made smaller. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Resized. Working on above still. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay to the tables. In response to the data not being available, you need to make a footnote explaining that, as the reader won't go searching for this FLRC.--Truco 02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've added the footnote. I'd also like to apologise for the time its took for me to respond to these issues, as I've been rather busy. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks fine, but the only general critique are the many wikilinks. You have wikilinked each instrument each time it came. Everything should only be wikilinked once I think.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the instruments should be linked on every occurrence in the table because the table is sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009 .

Notified: Gary King, WP Hip hop.

Fails the infamous criterion 3b. The three tables could easily be merged into the main article without making it overwhelming. It has fewer awards than List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party, which was delisted today. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist Since nothing in our (the editors') power can be done to make the list longer, the list cannot be modified to meet FL standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist If this is really as complete as it can get, than it should be a subsection somewhere else. Three total awards and 5 KB in total size just does not cut it as a stand-alone list. This list is next in line.--Crzycheetah 21:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist -- per 3b. I searched other sources to see if he has won anything from the late-90s up to the present date, but he has won nothing, so like Dabomb stated, we as editors don't have the power to change that. Its best to merge it into the main article.--Truco 21:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge Reywas92 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009 .

Notified: Royalguard11, Arctic.gnome, WP Canada, WP Governments of Canada, WP Political parties and politicians in Canada, WP Saskatchewan

Per 3b "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreation of material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." If I'm reading this correctly, then this could reasonably included in Premier of Saskatchewan, which is currently a very short stub. Cool3 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick background to prevent misunderstanding of other users: Criterion 3b was added as part of a series of changes made after a two-week period of discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and Merge The main article is a stub. There is no reason that they can't be merged. With a stub like that, it's nothing more that a content fork.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - agreed with the nom. —Ed 17 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per criterion 3b, and the fact that there are no inline citations. –Juliancolton |  20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per criterion 3b. Verifiability is another issue, but the general references cover quite a bit. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Even though its parent article is currently a stub, I think that merging would be a mistake because as it currently stands almost all of the list of Canadian premiers are standardized and featured, which is useful for both navigational purposes and for a featured topic that was planed and will still likely happen before long. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - the lack of citations is concerning but I do not think the stubyness of Premier of Saskatchewan is an argument in favour of merging. Premier of Saskatchewan is capable of being a fully formed article of length long enough to merit two separate articles (that one and this one), and I think that that that article's deficiency should not impact on the independence of this article. Rather, the potential for Premier of Saskatchewan to become a long enough article should mean the two get to stay independent. So oppose merge - rst20xx (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thinking this over again, Arctic Gnome makes a nice point. I'm unsure of how much Premier of Saskatchewan can be expanded, but I think it might be better to standardize the different types of articles for easier access for readers' benefits. List of premiers of British Columbia and Premier of British Columbia probably won't even have to be merged, as the articles are just too long already. However, even with that I am unsure of whether I can support the article. The FLC was over two years ago, and so some things have come up that need to be fixed:
    • Lead expansion: There should not be any two line paragraphs in the lead.
    • Split the "Period" section into "first day in office" and "final day in office", or something alone those lines.
    • What "Elections (Riding)" are has to be explained.
    • Images should be found for all of these people; the table just does not look good without them.
    • The "Assemblies" column should be expanded so that "Assemblies" can be on one line instead of being split to two.

NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the FLRC director

• This is what I feared might happen, and is exactly why I want discussions pertaining to 3b violations to take place on the article's talk page before the actual FLRC. Some material that can be merged shouldn't be merged simply for the sake of merging. Personally, I think the main article still has a lot of room for expansion, so like I said earlier, this FLRC is fairly premature. — sephiroth bcr 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  Quite sorry about that. However, I think the issue of a lack of inline citations and some style issues raised above still stand either way. Cool3 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm leading toward keeping this as a stand-alone list, but there are still issues. No time for a full review, but FLs no longer start out as "This is a list of..." The lead needs at least a couple inline citations, and the lead does not summarize the list at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no comment as to whether this is a featured list or not as it's not my area of experience (maybe I voted for it the first time, I don't remember). As for the second part, I must say that it's quite a coup you have going on here, skipping the whole merger discussion that traditionally happen on the talk page and transferring to a discussion that is not even linked from the page itself. How many lists have you been merged without notice on a talk page the page itself? This is the first I have heard of this and I must say that as an admin I'm quite ashamed that transparency is being sacrificed in the name of, well whatever being gained here. I've left notices on both the Canadian Wikipedians' Notice Board and the article talk page to make sure that people know what's going on (not canvassing, just making sure that this is being kept transparent which the nominator seems to have tried to avoid). -Royalguard11(T) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment first off, this is not the place for a merge discussion, so I would leave that out entirely. Second, I don't think the fact that Premier of Saskatchewan is in need of major expansion is a valid reason for delisting this article. I think both the list and the article can be expanded, so I am not satisfied that this list meets the new content fork aspect of 3b. However, this list does fail current standards due to its poor quality lead and lack of inline citations. This list met the criteria as of about 3 revisions ago when it was promoted though. Also, as per other recent FLRCs, I would reiterate that I am always disappointed when people rush off ot FLRC right away rather than engage in discussions on concerns. Opportunity to improve an article should always preceed a removal candidacy, imo, and frankly that should be made a requirement of even starting a FxRC nom. Resolute 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist -- Not on the basis of 3b, the main article can be fairly expanded, and like President of the United States, it can warrant a new list. But I do suggest rewording the intro sentence, and expanding the list a bit more to give background on the premiers and a summary of the list itself. I also suggest expanding the width of the table and making a key to explain some of the things in the table like what the three dots means "...", what (Riding) means, the period entries should have emdashes. The list also needs more in-line citations and the references should be made into general and specific.--Truco 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this page quite meets 3b. Although the parent article is rather short, it is a very notable topic that could be expanded quite a bit. The list itself also has individual notability, so I think it's okay on the basis of 3b. -- Scorpion 19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: All Canadian provinces and territories need to be treated in the same way. Either they all have an article on the position and a separate list of its occupants, or they all have a single merged article-plus-list. Saskatchewan can't be singled out as an isolated exception to a standard and comprehensive format. So in the absence of a consensus to merge all of the Canadian provincial and territorial premier lists into the position articles, this one isn't mergeable in isolation — either they all get merged or none do, absolutely nothing in between. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 00:52, 22 April 2009 .

Notified: WP National Football League, Smith03, Zzyzx11, Jfg284

Fails criteria 2, and 5, as well as the mandate for verifiability.

• Does not have an engaging lead sentence; FLs no longer start out "List of NFL champions".
• Breaches style guidelines for accessibility (needs symbols to accompany color); en dashes should be used in scores. "End-of-season championships" table needs a key or better footnote system, as it's not always clear what the numbers signify.
• The big one: The general reference is dead, meaning that 95% of the info is not verifiable. In addition, inline citations should be added to the lead and Records section.

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist - As I've said elsewhere, I have numerous issues with this list in its current form. In addition to the reasons Dabomb gave above, the title is misleading as the list only gives champions before 1970, when the NFL and AFL completed their merger. Needs work to maintain its featured status. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep I have addressed all of the listed concerns except the symbols to accompany the colors:

1. Per WP:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions, "The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs)," so I fail to see how it is incorrect.

   No, I was referring to the lead sentence, not the title; i.e., "This is a list of National Football League (NFL) champions". Dabomb87 (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

2. I added en dashes to all scores. I clarified to what the numbers in the tables refer and used internal footnotes to distinguish from the number of championships.
3. I added two current references from the Pro Football Hall of Fame website and one from Pro Football Reference.
4. I would support a move to a more-accurate name, perhaps "List of NFL champions before the AFL-NFL merger."

I'll soon add symbols if no one else does but tonight I am tired.--2008Olympian 06:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - items in the Records section needs refs—Chris! _ct 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Suggestions were already made above. If this list can be fixed up, leave me a message, and I'll check it out again.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For the name, I would suggest List of NFL champions (1920–1969). Giants2008 (17-14) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist -- I suggest expanding the lead a bit more to summarize the list more. The section headers are also confusing, as they are not elaborated in prose. The records also look a bit trivial, some of these can be in the lead. The referencing should also be formatted into general and specific references.--Truco 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I put in symbols. Refs are still needed for the Records section and concerns about the lead and list name need to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist There has been improvement, but issues remain. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 16:30, 5 April 2009 .

Gimmetrow is probably going to hate me for doing the nomination this way, but I'll tell you what, if your bot can't do it, I'll do all of it manually.

Anyway, this is a procedural nom. A consensus for merge was established here and further discussion can be found here. -- Scorpion 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per discussions linked.  iMatthew :  Chat  16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per criterion 3b and linked discussions. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per 3b and discussion. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per above. —Ed 17 17:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist —Chris! _ct 18:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per criterion 3b. —TheLeftorium 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per criterion 3b, though it's a shame to merge such high-quality work. –Juliancolton |  20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist assuming that all of these will be merged into List of universities in Canada. Reywas92 22:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd think this can be speedy closed? WP:SNOW.  iMatthew :  Chat  22:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Patience young one.--Truco 02:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Young one?  iMatthew :  Chat  21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• For the fun of it, Delist. Hope Gary King's going to be all right. -- ]_{call me Keith} 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist -- 3b--Truco 02:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist These lists are already ready to merge. --Crzycheetah 22:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, per my suggestion to Scorpion before I went away. Rambo's Revenge (ER) 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 .

Notified WikiProject Hip hop and Gary King

List fails criteria 3b. Could easily be merged with Akon discography.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per criterion 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge with Akon. —TheLeftorium 20:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as there's really no place to merge it (Akon discography is long enough as it is). –Juliancolton |  20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It could probably be merged with Akon. —TheLeftorium 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist assuming that it will be merged into Akon or Akon discography. Reywas92 22:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- I actually just notice, but this list is actually incomplete. According to aceshowbiz (a blacklisted site here on Wiki for IDK reasons) but he has won and been nominated for numerous awards which would make merging this article into either of the main articles unnecessary. The first link in this google search.--Truco 02:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Can easily be merged into the main article.--Crzycheetah 22:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:17, 18 April 2009 .

Notified: WikiProject Civil engineering, WikiProject Bridges and Sam.

There are a lot of problems with this one.

• It has a very small lead that doesn't properly summarize the article.
• I'm not sure I like the formatting, and the embedded external links should probably be turned into references.
• Speaking of references, there are a lot of improperly formatted references.
• A bunch of unsourced statements, especially in the bottom sections.
• The biggest problem: a lot of dead external links, thus that means many of the entries are unsourced.

-- Scorpion 04:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1) What do you think the lede should say that it is missing?

2) Please read the original nomination about the external links. As far as I know, there is no other way to create a table that automatically numbers. This has been discussed previously.

3) I'll work on fixing these when I have a chance. Please help.

4) The history section comes from Bridgemeister.com, which is listed as a reference. A citation can be added. Please add citation needed tags anywhere else you'd like to see them, and I'll work on finding them.

5) These links are constantly going dead. When I notice (which is rarely), I replace them with links from archive.org or find new ones. This will take a while to fix, thanks for linking to the reference tool. That will make things easier.

--☑ SamuelWantman 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the lead summarizes the article very well, it could mention things like which is the longest, newest, which nation/city has the most on the list, etc. -- Scorpion 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It meets the featured list criteria as I see it. Prose is used where required in the article. The lead could be expanded to be more engaging to those who do not have familiarity with the subject, but it accurately outlines the how and what of the list. The list is comprehensive, covering both the longest spans in use as well as the historical record-holders. It meets the structure criteria. The style and visual appeal are there: good use of picutres, etc. The article is not subject to any ongoing edit war. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So the fact that a lot of the entries are essentially unsourced is not of concern? Because FLRC is meant to improve existing FLs, you really shouldn't say it should be kept until after all concerns are addressed. -- Scorpion 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's be clear here. There is very little on this page that was added without a source. Many of the sources are now dead links. These can be fixed. The orignal sources of the list (listed in the reference section at the bottom) are now obsolete. In essence, this page has now become the most up to date list of these bridges that I have found. That is to be expected with a wiki. This page is constantly maintained, and people add bridges as soon as they open to the public. Other more static resources cannot compete with a wiki for this sort of accuracy. In addition, there is rarely a reliable third-party source for the length of bridge spans. Any third party listing of a bridges length probably originated from the maker and/or operator of the bridge. I don't know of any organization that measures these spans independently. Everyone takes the word of the engineers and surveyors hired by the builders of the bridge. So in essence, the only source of information for these bridges is the bridges owners. On the other hand, I've never heard of anyone caring to challenge the statistics claimed by a bridge owner. --☑ SamuelWantman 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues Just a general list for now.

• "This list ranks the world's suspension bridges by the length of the main span (the length of suspended roadway between the towers). " Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging lead sentences.
• Why link "bridge" when "suspension bridge", a much more high value link, is already linked.
• There is no summary of the list at all or context. Yes, the lead "accurately" outlines the list, but FL standards have risen a lot, and leads are expected to provide context and summarize the list. For example, simply define what a suspension bridge is.
• I seriously doubt that all the images are in order. For example, File:Tamar Bridge Cornwall Devon.jpg, how do we know that the author has released the image under the GNU Free Documentation License? I see no indication in the provided link.
• References need major cleanup, but I wouldn't worry about that until all the necessary citations are added.

Right now, the list for sure fails criteria 2, 5, and 6 as well as the lead of the criteria, which states that FLs should " the requirements for all Knowledge (XXG) content", which includes image use and citations. The list is by no means bad, but not quite at current standards. It's been nearly three years since promotion, so naturally there will be things to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is easier to fix some of these issues than comment on them. This list had a comprehensive review of all the images when it was first promoted. If there is a problem with any specific image, please list them, because I am not aware of any. What makes you think the list is not comprehensive? I believe it is more comprehensive than any other that exists anywhere! What are the problems that make you think it fails criteria 5? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on images, but I know that not all of them are properly licensed. Sorry I meant criterion 6, not 3. Criteria 5—Just at random: Conversions are not provided for units ("History of long spans" section); spaced en dashes should be used as separators in lists instead of en dashes; the flags don't really serve a purpose; abbreviations of US states should be spelled out; refs are not properly formatted (need last access date, web title and publisher). Criterion 6—Why are external links used in the ranks section? The red asterisk is annoying. Another random image issue: File:Elizabeth Bridge small.jpg has no attributions. These are just examples of things that need to be fixed in addition to the general things I mentioned above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I just now copied the attribution for the original image to the small image. Please read the original nomination discussion for the reason for the external links. There is no other way that I am aware of to create a self numbering ranks. The external links can be used to verify the bridge statistics. There is rarely any source for this information other than the bridge owner/builder. Nobody that I know of independently verifies the length of bridge spans. "en dashes should be used as separators in lists instead of en dashes"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by "self numbering"—why not just put in plain-text numerals? WRT en dashes, see this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I added some semblance of formatting to the refs. However, the publishers need to be more descriptive ("Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" instead of "panynj.gov"), and some web references still need to be formatted. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks for trying, but now all the rankings are wrong! Perhaps you should figure out how you are going to get all the rankings to work before reformatting everything. I don't see that the "standard" style adds anything to the list. It was clearly stated that the rankings were links to the bridges web-sites, or other references. The guidelines for links/refs used to have some lee-way. Has our guidelines become so rigid that we need to hobble lists to create uniformity everywhere? If so, that seems unfortunate to me, and I for one, am not interested in putting the effort into hobbling this list. Good luck to you... If you succeed, my hat is off to you. If you don't, I'll be reverting to the previous version when you are done. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Fixed the numbering issue, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
              • My hat is off to you! Since you seem to know your way around references, do you have any suggestions for a way to add a citation to bridgemeister.com for the section on historical bridges? The first reference ( on the oldest bridge) leads to a page that is linked to the next bridge, and that bridge is linked to the next, etc... Does each line need its own reference? Is there a way to reference the entire section as coming from Bridgemeister? Thanks for your help. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues I just found this today, after making some edits to the article. One issue I still have with the article is that suspension bridges is a fairly broad class that includes a particular type of suspension bridge, (for want of a better name) a suspended-deck suspension bridge. I think all the bridges on this list are of that type. But what about the other types? This list might be more interesting (and certainly more complete) if it included the other types of suspension bridge, perhaps in a chronological order. That would bring in many of the important historical bridges. Or perhaps this article should be renamed? --Una Smith (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist/Comments by Truco

• The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list itself more.
• Some of the sections can be made into table format, like the bridges under construction/history of long spans/ranked by total length/planned and proposed briges
• Some statements need referencing, like in the Planned bridges never built section
• There are dead links
• The reference section needs to be reformatted into a more presentable general/specific referencing--Truco 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Many problems with this article, suggests starting with Truco's comments.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do the other sections need to be in a table? Most of them are prose. I think they are better as they are. The Planned bridges never built section was added after this reached featured status. I think the section should be marked as needing references, or deleted if that would keep this from being de-featured. If it is featured level without the section, isn't an additional section marked as needing citations an improvement? Being featured, doesn't mean that we should not allow the wiki process to keep improving the content! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Because this is a list, and it is more presentable in table format. This is comparable to tallest buildings list, such as the List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. (which have the under construction/proposed in table format).--Truco 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - I have questions on the reliability of many of the refs. —Ed 17 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example? What are your questions. Without specifics, how can anyone possibly fix the problems you see? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The references are now in the proper form. I'm working on getting rid of the dead links. It is much better now than it was when it was first promoted to featured status, and it continues to improve. If I wasn't spending most of the limited time I have discussing this and other pages, I could have fixed these issues. I would suggest that people first make critical comments like those above on the talk pages of articles or lists and letting some time go by before nominating the page for delisting. That would be a much more positive, less combative approach to fixing the flaws that you see. Look at it from my point of view. I spent weeks collecting the information for this list, and weeks bringing it to featured status. I've monitored it for years, keeping the information accurate. Nobody has challenged any of the information in this list as being inaccurate. Now, without prior warning, you want to delist it because some links have gone dead, some things aren't quite perfect in the formatting, etc... This is not a good way to encourage people. A much better approach would be to drop a comment on the talk page, and actually make some of the improvements that you think need to happen. Save the delistings for things that have real serious problems that don't get dealt with over time. This page is not a serious problem. Delisting it will not inspire me to continue to keep it up to date. What it might possibly do is inspire me to find a new hobby! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from the FLRC director

• I realize efforts are being made to address the present comments, but there's a lot of work to do on this last. From a cursory look, several references need to be formatted using {{cite web}}, the "ranking" section should simply use a number that is referenced rather than a ref, the external links to pictures should be cut, and everything should be linked in the sortable table. This FLRC has been open for quite a while now, and I probably will be inclined to close this when GimmeBot next runs on Wednesday barring significant improvements to the article in the time. To the editors addressing the issues with the article, I'd recommend that you ask the people who left comments to expand on them if you don't know what to address. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr 09:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you expand on "the "ranking" section should simply use a number that is referenced rather than a ref"? Do you mean that each bridges "ranking" should be entered in the table as a "hard" or "static" number? The "ref" system for ranking made it easy to add a new entry and not need to "re-number" the entire list. There can be one to five new entries in a year (as bridges open). A "static" number could make for tedious editing. Is there an example of another "dynamic" way to wiki-code the ranking besides the "ref" system? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"several references need to be formatted using {{cite web}}"

These are slowly getting fixed. I have limited time to work on this page. If I didn't spend as much time responding to these comments under the threat of delisting, It would happen faster.

Honestly and to be frank, it's not my problem. If you're unable to fix the standing problems within the scope of the FLRC, then I'm going to delist. You're more than welcome to open a peer review and go to WP:FLC after the list is delisted. Now, I don't want this to be delisted; I'll be happy to see this stay a featured list, but the problems raised to need to be addressed. — sephiroth bcr 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"The "ranking" section should simply use a number that is referenced rather than a ref"

I think this is a very bad suggestion. The list was featured with refs used this way, and it makes the list much, much easier to maintain. I would rather have it delisted than comply with this. In fact, I would revert anyone else who put in numbers instead of refs. I am not interested in the tedium of updating a list of numbers several times a year. I wouldn't ask it of anyone else.

That's a really poor reason. List contributors update lists in such a manner all the time. Your willingness to update the list, as it is with your willingness to address to the problems here, isn't really my problem. Also, previous comments have noted that the lead is insufficient, so you inevitably will have to place references in the lead, wrecking your format. This change will come at some point. — sephiroth bcr 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"the external links to pictures should be cut"

Why? These are a useful shortcut to find these images which are on the articles for each individual bridge. It clearly illustrates that there is not a free image available. The list was approved for featured status with these links, and nobody has objected since (that is, until this comment).

Pretty sure it's a violation of WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. If you don't have an image, then you don't have an image. Take a list such as List of Nobel laureates in Literature, which has a decent number of laureates missing pictures because they're not available. Not having images available will not impact the article's FL status. — sephiroth bcr 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

External photo links add value - I would disagree with your position on this. You say that the article violates the WP:NOTLINK policy. This policy says that WP is not "a mere collection of links". This article is not a collection of links. The "linked photo" is only used where there is not a photo available within Knowledge (XXG). If the article was "a collection of links" it would have an external photo link for each bridge. Since there are only 14 out of 100 entries that have a linked photo, I am unclear how this makes the list "a collection of links" and a violation of policy. Further, all of the bridges that are missing internal pictures are outside of English speaking countries-so it is logical that bridges there exist (and will continue to be added) that cannot have pictures that meet the licensing requirements of WP. Your determination on this seems arbitrary to me.
Second, you say the article "violates" WP:EL. The nutshell of guideline says that External Links should be (1) minimal, (2) meritable, and (3) directly relevant. I consider 14 out of 100 to be minimal. They are meritable to the list and helpful to the readers. If an English visitor to Chongqing, China has a picture of a bridge in the background of a photo and wants to identify it, they would be able to use the list and the photo link to determine if it is the Second Wanxian Bridge in the background. Since there is not yet an article for this bridge, and there are not yet any acceptable pictures uploaded to WP, the linked photo provides readers with very good information to supplant that provided in the list.
As an aside, I note two things. That WP:EL is only a guideline. So it is more preferential than policy and yet you use the term "violation". Second, you toss out these comments saying you are "pretty sure it's a violation". I recommend that this process think about following the spirit of Verifiability#cite_note-1. By this I mean the following: "when there is an assertion that the list does not meets a policy (or follow a guideline), direct quotes from the policy (or guideline) should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the issue." Yes, this is more work for the volunteers that participate in this FLRC process, but the project editors like Sam and I that come along will be more amenable to fixing not just the FL list articles, but all articles when we are given better specifics. Aren't better articles the entire goal?
I say this because several comments you have made could feel like a WP:BITE to those not familiar to the FLRC process. Things like "I'm going to delist" and "your willingness to (update/address) … isn't really my problem." - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Penny! I am so amused that you have mentioned WP:BITE. I've been a Wikipedian for over 5 years, and an Admin for more than 3. I feel covered with teeth marks recently. Perhaps BITE needs to be rewritten about biting anyone -- new or old. If anything, it seems many of the newbies I've interacted with recently, have been the ones nipping me. We're all volunteers here. We should be making things pleasant for each other. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"everything should be linked in the sortable table."

What does this mean?

Everything should be wikilinked within the table if it can be (namely the locations). As the positioning of the cells can change at any given time, it's not known which cell may be above the other, thus the proper practice is to link everything. — sephiroth bcr 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This FLRC has been open for quite a while now, and I probably will be inclined to close this when GimmeBot next runs on Wednesday barring significant improvements to the article in the time.

If you close this as a delist, I'll probably stop working on maintaining it. If you close it as a keep, I'll slowly keep fixing the links. Delisting it would seem like a lack of good faith in the work I and others have been doing with this list. What does it gain? Do you think anyone other than a Wikipedian cares that a reference is not formatted correctly?

This FLRC has been open for about three weeks. Two weeks is the normal allotment. If I'm not seeing significant progress within that time, then I'll be more inclined to have the list be delisted, the problems be fixed without having a time frame, and the list be brought back to WP:FLC to be evaluated by the FLC regulars. As for your comments about references and other minutae, this is a featured list: it is supposed to comply with all of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines and be a sterling example for other lists on the project. Not addressing issues such as references would be contrary to that goal. — sephiroth bcr 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"To the editors addressing the issues with the article, I'd recommend that you ask the people who left comments to expand on them if you don't know what to address."

You've got this backwards. I've left lots of comments asking for explanations on this page, and most people have not bothered to come back here after making drive-by critiques. To my eyes, that illustrates what is wrong with this process. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant go to their talk pages and ask for more commentary. The onus is on you to fix the list, not them. — sephiroth bcr 07:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have now fixed all the dead links, the bridges under construction or proposed are in table format. The external links, previously used are now all references. All the dead links are gone. Almost all of the reference formats have been fixed (I'll get the last of them soon). I don't agree with any of the other suggestions, and I don't think policy or guidelines require them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Update Improvement has been made, but there are still a few issues. Some of these may not be desirable, but are needed to keep this as an FL.

• Remove the flags per MOS:FLAG.
• The lead needs expansion, including a summary of the list (longest bridge, which country currently has the most on the list, etc.). There also needs to be more explanation about the basic construction and architecture of bridges. This will require inline citations in the lead, meaning that the current table numbering system will have to be converted to a fixed format. Sam, I know you are opposed to this for maintenance reasons, but it is simply better and more visually appealing. If it helps, I am willing to help implement the new numbering system.
• Some of the references need to be converted to a legible and understandable format, e.g., ref 55.
• I agree with Sephiroth that the image links need to be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

These are the major things. If these are addressed, then this list will be pretty close to keep territory. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My comments are the same as Dabomb. In addition, some of the locations in the propose buildings need to be more exact. Using "near" and "city A to city B" is not right, especially in a sortable table: be consistent. Also, "ideas proposed" should just be proposed. Finally, the timeline should also be in a table as seen in this building's FL List of tallest buildings in Baltimore.--Truco 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't add the flags, yet I also didn't remove them after someone else added them. At first I did not like them, and thought of removing them myself. Over time, I have found them to be quite useful. If you are scanning the list for a specific country, It is easier to spot the flag than the name in print. I don't see how the use of flags here is counter to to MOS:FLAG. It is directly relevant to the chart if you are scanning for the country. At most, I think this is a matter of taste. I can see a good reason to keep the flags for scanning purposes. The only argument against is an interpretation of a guideline of which I don't concur.
• I'll take a stab at the lede.
• I already said I would fix the last of the references.
• I don't see why a linked image is alright in a section called "external links" and not alright in a table. It is useful, and not against any policy that I know of.
• The reason a proposed bridge might be located "near" and "city A to city B" is because it is hasn't been built yet! When planners start talking about bridges they talk about creating a connection from a place to another. The exact location is part of the preliminary planning for the bridge. Also, since these bridges have recently been proposed there is very, very little information about them. This was one of the reasons I did not originally think a sortable list was appropriate. Knowledge (XXG) is about verifiable information. If there is NO information to be found, or the exact location has not been decided, you don't want me to make it up, or fudge the information so that the list sorts nicely, do you? Surely, there must be some leeway in your exacting standards for lists to account for such a problem!
• I'll change "idea proposed" to "proposed".
• I've been thinking about a timeline, but hadn't yet decided on a format. I'll take a stab at it when I have a chance, and my time isn't taken up responding to these comments.
• Changing the refs to numbers will make it much less likely that this list will be maintained. Please don't do it (unless you are volunteering to maintain it). It is exceedingly tedious renumbering a list of over 100 entries when a new long bridge has been completed (this happens several times a year). Eventually, the wiki software will have a provision for auto-numbering for tables. Until then, I think it is a big waste of time and effort to do it manually.

--☑ SamuelWantman 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the "linked photo" issue. They are limited to bridges without uploaded photos. They are especially valuable on WP:REDLINK bridges (typically those in a foreign-language country) where there is not yet enough published information to develop even a stub. The list is the only place in WP for this info. This is why they add value.
Please provide a quote of the policy or guideline that has led you to determine that this limited number of "external photo links" is not appropriate within the list. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 .

Notified: WikiProject Alternative music, Gary King, WilliamH

I'd like to get this out of the way: Yes, I know that the FLR process is not a subsitute for the afd or merge processes.

Let me start that I believe that I have failed in one of my most important duties as FL director: maintaining high standards for the Featured List process. For too long I have watched FLs like this go through the process and I usually never commented and I myself promoted them. I think it is time to start examining where the process has gone. Let's face it, FLs these days take less effort than GAs. People see this and they decide to try to get as much featured content as possible by working on easy cookie cutter lists. These award and nomination lists are a prime example of this. Whether or not some of them should even exist is never called into question. So I am going try to start a discussion on some of these FLs and I am using this one as a test case. Such small lists with such a small, limited scope hurt the process because people look at them and say "that's all it takes?"

I've always seen off-shoot lists as a chance to add things that you wouldn't be able to add in the normal article, either due to length, or undue weight concerns. The main Bloc Party article (which is a GA) is 33 KB. This page is 24 kb, but most of it is references (many of which are used in the BP article). These lists should be used for artists who have received many accolades for many different works that would be too difficult to put in one place, like The Beatles or Quincy Jones.

Sure, this page is referenced and nicely formatted, but the question that needs to be asked is this: Does a page that could easily be merged into another with 376 words of readable prose size and small tables really qualify as wikipedia's best work? It is important to note that I am not saying all small lists should be delisted. For example, NHL Foundation Player Award is a FL and I do wish it was longer, but it's mostly original non-duplicated content and no practical place to merge. However, I think you could argue that this one could easily be merged. -- Scorpion 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Your first sentence sums up why I don't think this is appropriate. There really isn't anything actionable here. If you want to merge, then take it to the article's talk page or if necessary, to AfD. When it really comes down to it, this doesn't fail WP:WIAFL, so there's nothing for FLRC to address unless there's a tangible consensus elsewhere to merge, which is an editorial decision (and to some extent, a notability discussion) that doesn't belong at FLRC. My immediate reaction is to close this. — sephiroth bcr 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I think that it is because the FL? criteria is flawed. During our change discussions, I pushed for some kind of notability or usefulness criteria, but I was summarily ignored. -- Scorpion 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Sephiroth BCR, the article seems to meet all the FL criteria, therefore it should be a FL. I agree though that the list is particularly short and there are a number discography FLs I've seen go through where I thought they were too short as well. Unfortunately length isn't one of the criteria by which FLs are judged according to WP:WIAFL, maybe this should be addressed. But until it is addressed the outcome of this FLRC should be to keep. --JD554 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but if this list meets the criteria, then the criteria needs to be changed. -- Scorpion 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh I agree. But then the discussion should take place at WT:WIAFL. If consensus is reached for a change to the criteria then FLRCs can be made. Until then this article should remain an FL as it meets the current criteria. --JD554 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I would also argue that it does not meet the very first, and most important, part of the criteria: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." The criteria also says: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Knowledge (XXG) content", although they are not specifically mentioned, I believe this list is not notable enough for it's own page and is content forking. -- Scorpion 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we change the criteria first, then come here. Many FLs could be potentially delisted and merged if we set a new precedent; please let's discuss it first. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The core of this is: what do we want FL to be--anything or only things notable? I agree with Dabomb87. For this particular list, the question is "Is this group notable enough?" It's a minor band and I see why it may be delisted. Just like some articles will never in reality be FAs, though theoretically any could, the same is true of lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hold this FLRC until the criteria concerns are sorted out. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist -- Seeing how the new criteria is about to pass, this can easily be merged into the main article. Unless they have won new awards as of late that will expand it significantly, then no it should not remain a featured list or separate article.--Truco 17:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist per criterion 3b, this list does not warrant being separate. Nothing can be done to address this (other than get the band to win a lot of awards in the next two weeks or so), so might as well delist now. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per the new criterion 3b.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per the new 3b. —Ed 17 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist 80 % of info is already in the main article, just add two more sentences about nominations and it's good to go(i.e. merge).--Crzycheetah 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist The fact they have won one award can easily be merged back into the main article. --JD554 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• As much as it pains me, I'll have to say delist because of the new content fork thing (3b I presume.) Sorry.  GARDEN  14:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 .

Notified: Eliko and Shibo77

Review OboeCrack (talk · contribs)

1. The format of references is sometimes wrong.
2. The prose section is also very short relative to the article's scope.
3. We cannot compare the differnence between years, in almost all countries it has increased, but comparing it to es:Países ordenados por Índice de Desarrollo Humano, it doesn't show the nmber of ranks it has increased or decreased. 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This one looks saveable if we get the right editors; are there any WikiProjects that can be notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Delist Unfortunate, but the list has not improved. I wish I could help, but we need expert attention here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist -- Expert attention is needed, the only thing I can suggest is that the lead be expanded, the list be updated, and that it receives a copyedit.--Truco 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove/Delist/Un-Feature Take Truco's suggestions, and then come back to FLC and re-nominate.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Scorpion0422 16:30, 5 April 2009 .

Notified: Gary King and Wikiprojects Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Education in Canada and Universities.

1. Prose. The writting style suggests that it is based on cut and paste factoids, and does not give context. 2. Lead. Does not match WP:MOS (no bold title). Inclusion criteria not explained. Why group as Prairie region? This region exists in one once place in Canadian law, the Senate, which has nothing to do with Universities. Why only universiries and not colleges or other post-secondary? Why mix the universities of three provinces when they each have distinct legal regimes covering who is a university and who is not? 3. Comprehensiveness. A government source I have recently pointed out contradicts Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which is used as almost the only source. The fact that this is wrong suggest that the AUCC is not a WP:RELIABLE source. Therefore all the content is suspect and needs to be resourced with more official references.

• In general I'm not even sure the article should exist. It copies (but with discrepencies) most of the individual provincial lists (AB, SK, MN and the national list. I am a little suprised that it was promoted to FL. First I am nominating it for review. But maybe we should also be talking about a merger or deletion. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I suppose the only reason why this list exists is because there's some obscure WP regulation saying that a FL should have a minimum of items. So the author, in order to promote his featured topic, came up with this grouping. Alas, this has no connection with reality, there's no real-world-reason to group this items, as education is managed by each province, there are different laws and governing bodies in each province. I don't contest the fact that this list passes the FL criteria, but it shouldn't exist at all. A nomination for deletion would be more appropriate in my opinion. --Qyd (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be argued at AfD. A FL being a possible deletion candidate is not a reason to delist, imo, as anyone can bring an AfD for any reason, and any consensus here could be over-ridden by a later AfD. Taking this there once might clear up consensus on the issue, but it doesn't need to be FL-delisted in the mean time. -- YobMod 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I would not be opposed to all of the lists being merged together into List of universities in Canada. Yes, the topic would be lost, but lets face it, the sub-lists are pretty much exact copies of the main list tables (except some are split into public and private). The only differences are individual maps and a larger lead (although much of the text is repeated). Generally, I'm not a fan of sub-lists using the exact same table format as the master list. Sub-lists need to offer something new before they should be given their own page. -- ScorpionO'422 15:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I supported the original based on the fact that the states are contiguous, and that the region has a name and definition (even if not used to group universities), and still think it is acceptable. But, maybe merging them all into one would be the best answer, per above. This distroys the topic, but i'm not seeing much benefit in having a list with sublists with very little extra info as a topic.YobMod 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a fair bit of over-splitting within this group of lists. I have proposed the merge, please feel free to take a look and discuss it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist, and then merge. Whilst I still think this should be merged, even if this could stand alone legitimately the information is all out of date (fall 2007) so I think this should be delisted regardless. I have asked Scorpion about how I should go about things with the other lists. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that title doesn't always need to be in boldface per WP:BOLDTITLE.—Chris! _ct 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• A merge would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist and merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge like suggested.--Truco 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge  iMatthew :  Chat  13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.