Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Red links

The removal of Indian national cricket captains for having too many redlinks appears to contradict one of the purposes of lists: as a mechanism for identifying articles that need writing. Redlinks are, therefore, no indication of the quality of a list, which needs to be comprehensive irrespective of its subject coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia. —Theo (Talk) 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)

Too many redlinks is a problem. Some redlinks is not. "Featured" means Wikipedia's best. Featured lists have to be useful, and that means linking them to articles that expound the subject in greater detail. If Indian national cricket captains were re-nominated now, it would be shot on sight:) jguk 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)

jguk's points are valid ones. Around two-fifths of the internal wikilinks (primarily in the second half of the list) are redlinks. See Wikipedia:What is a featured list, point #s 2 and 5 for how to improve the list. One of the main uses of a list here at Wikipedia is to thematically collate related articles according to at least one, and usually a few secondary, common elements. The list is laid out well, but the redlinks tend to invalidate a large portion of the usefulness of the list.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)

To amplify: the criterion of "usefulness" includes the requirement that an article has a "large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)". A list composed of redlinks is useful in highlighting areas were our coverage is weak, but not so useful for a reader. On the other hand, tactically delinking entries to avoid red links is also frowned upon. -- ALoan (Talk) 04:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)

Major changes to featured lists

Where would be the best place to discuss whether a major change to a featured list improved it, or made it worse (possible grounds for demotion), other than the talk page of the list itself? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC-7)

Quite likely in this page, since there's no review mechanism for FLs as there is for featured articles. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC-7)

I'd think that this page should be named something akin to "Featured List Review," as compared to "Featured Article Review." Thus, if you wished to make a major change you could nominate those list(s) here, without the stigma of "list removal" attached. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC-7)

Featured Articles has a two-step approach to this... WP:FAR and WP:FARC. We could consider a similar concept, but really we don't get so much traffic, making it less necessary. With a one-stop-shop, perhaps FLR would be misleadingly innocent? --Dweller (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Proposed new instructions for FLRC

To do justice to our recent major changes in the FLC process, the revamp of the FLC criteria (which govern all existing FLs as well as candidates), and our appointment of FLRC directors, I propose the following text to replace the existing instructions. I've generally copied the FAR/C instructions, which I think are pretty good, especially in their emphasis on the review/updating process. Feedback is welcome below the box. TONY (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Reviewing featured lists This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. Featured list review (FLR) In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve lists rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured list criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve lists in various ways, such as updating, formatting, and general copy-editing. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. The delegates who act as FLR directors, Dweller and Matthewedwards, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage. Featured list removal candidate (FLRC) A FL list is never added as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this second stage, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. The FLR directors determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly. Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by the moving of a FL from review to the removal candidates' list. Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the list talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives.

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article Toolbox (Updates daily)

Nominating an article for FLR Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in list content. Place {{FLR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated list. Write "FLR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page". Note: if an article has already been through the FLR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list review/List of African TV stations → Wikipedia:Featured list review/List of African TV stations/archive1 From there, click on the "add a comment" link. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the subpage. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the list, specifying the FL criterion/criteria that are at issue. Click on "Save page". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated lists, {{Wikipedia:Featured list review/name of nominated list}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Click on "Save page". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert the article name). Relevant talk pages include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the list stats script), the editor who originally nominated the list for Featured status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the ?List Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, although there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLR page specifying the notifications that have been made.

Feedback below here, please TONY (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

From Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

Before I go into my thoughts on a two-step approach, first let me point out while I remember that the right hand column of the template all relates to Featured article tools, which would need to be changed.

OK, now my thoughts on the overall idea:

I'm not entirely convinced that a two-step approach is necessary here. There are usually (but not always) only three main problems with lists:

1. Lists promoted in the early days of WP:FLC have only one or two sentence lead

2. Not enough citations

3. The list is out-of-date and needs only a few entries to make it in-date.

The nature of articles means that there are usually far more issues that need to be addressed when they are brought to WP:FAR. For lists, I think that it is far easier to address what these "main" issues, and this can be done the way it is now.

In a way the two-step approach works well at FAR, but I also feel that it doesn't. Firstly, there are usually more contributors to an article than a list, so there is probably more people willing to address any issues brought up to FAR than there are at FLRC. When they do come to FLRC I find they are usually from the notified Wikiproject. At the FLC talk page where this discussion was started (Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Updating instructions for FLRC) I proposed that more people should be notified when a list is brought to FLRC other than just the relevant wikiprojects, such as the current main contributors, the original FLC nominator and the FLC commenters, and I see that has been included in the new proposal which is nice. This could help bring more people in to help address issues if the two-step plan goes ahead here.

The problem I see with the FAR is that while it is sitting for 2, 3 or 4 weeks with the issues being addressed, it is still a WP:FA. Then it has another 3 or 4 weeks being !voted on. Now if someone is attempting to write another FA of a similar scope and base it on that one, maybe they might not know that it has problems, and their hard work to make something into Featured status is pointless because it will be shot down at FAC. If there are big issues to be addressed, leaving it for 6–8 weeks as a Featured article while that goes on is pointless. Rather than dragging it out in the hope it will pass the !vote in time, it should be demoted ASAP and once the issues are addressed, brought back to FAC.

Even though there are fewer people who take part in the FLRC process than the FAR, it still doesn't usually take that long for a list's issues to be addressed. I don't think that an initial !vote to "remove" is totally bad.. if the issues given are addressed, then it can easily be stricken and changed to "keep".

With regards to the new instructions, if this were to be passed and implemented then the third point of the FLR step confuses me. The first instruction says that !votes of "keep" or "remove" shouldn't be made, so how would consensus be made if it should be moved to the second stage? Whether or not the nominator's suggestions have been implemented, I'm thinking that the "consensus" would more than likely be solely the nominator's view.

I'm also not sure about the first paragraph of the Nominating an article for FLR section. Regarding the the nominator-must-help-address-the-issues thing, I'm not sure if that is such a good idea. If I brought forward a list from the Wikipedia:Featured lists#Biology and medicine section because it doesn't meet current standards I'd probably be able to address any MOS issues, but I'd have no clue how to address the factual parts. This might make me inclined to not bring it forward at all and instead leave it in the hope that someone else who does have knowledge in the area nominates it. That might not happen for another 6 months or even ever, which would mean a crappy list continues to be Featured with no hope for it to be excellent again. Also, if I see two lists that should be brought here, I don't see why I should have to wait 8 weeks for one nom to be closed, then bring another and wait for another 8 weeks. Assuming they were both removed in the end, that's a 16 week (or 4 month) period to wait for a crappy list to be de-Featured.

So instead of having a two-step approach here, I think the current one-step is, for now at least, the way to go for Lists, although I'm not opposed to some of the new instructions being combined and then introduced. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Matthew. A few responses:

1. I've no particular angle on the binary structure (review, than removal candidate). I'm perfectly willing to re-engineer the proposed text in a way that emphasises the review and improvement functions beyond the current text, but dispenses with the formal boundary between them and the second, removal-oriented process. Should I edit the binary structure out of the proposal? I think I'm getting from you a signal that I should; I don't disagree.

IMO, I think so, but others may like to go along with it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The three common issues you raise are indeed serious and not easy to fix. No. 3 looks like the easiest one. Nos. 1 and 2 might be very hard without the content-authors around, or without their cooperation. But I want to add to your list a fourth one, which is now more important given our new Criteria 1 (professional-standard prose) and 2 (engaging lead)—my suspicion is that a good proportion of FLs need therapy in these departments.
2. "Nominators are encouraged to help in improving their nomination where possible"—does that solve the issue you raised?

Yeah, that sounds less frightening! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

relatively minor proposed changes to the instructions

Rather than going the full hog with the binary system, as above, I propose that the notion of reviewing and improving/updating FLs be at least mentioned as part of the process. Otherwise, why bother contacting the original authors and wikiprojects? TONY (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can go along with that. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I added information about notifying other significant contributors and a link to the stat script. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new co-director for FLRC

Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Proposed_new_co-director_for_FLRC and keep any comments there. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed new co-director for FLRC

Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Proposed new FLRC delegate and keep any comments there. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

I made a backlog just for FLRC. Just look at the project page, and see how it looks. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There already was a discussion about this...we decided to add it to the FLC backlog template...where it is right now... iMatthew 11:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Activity in FLRC

The last comment added on FLRC dated back to December 21st. Don't you guys think we need more users to contribute to the process? -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 10:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we do, because some of those nomination stay on there for well over a month at times.--SRX 15:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the holiday season. I haven't had a whole lot of time to comment on nominations there. One of them is stalled because I gave a user a couple weeks for his vacation/break/something like that, I'm waiting on Dabomb87 to check on another, and I haven't peeked at the others yet. It's not that big of a deal as FLRC is a low-volume process (I know I'm going to regret saying that), but I'll try to leave some comments now. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have revisited one FLRC, and I will try to jumpstart another. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made comments of some sort on all four FLRCs, so hopefully there will be more activity in the coming days. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding preload and tool box to FLRC?

I think this would be helpful, no?--Truco 21:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary? No need for a nominators line, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the toolbox necessary, because some FLRCs have numerous dead external links.--Truco 21:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I like having it handy. Truco, why is Dabomb your son? (Your edit summary confuses me)  iMatthew :  Chat  21:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Its slang.--Truco 23:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree only if it can be tweaked so you can enter the relevant notified wikiprojects and users and it will link them automatically. On that note, it would also be nice if a bot could deliver the notices. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We're gonna have to get someone techy to do that.--Truco 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked User:Gary King to take a gander. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If only we knew a user that was desperate to get their bot doing some tasks...  iMatthew :  Chat  23:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do about the (large) number of lists that fail the new criteria

A very large number of lists appear to fail the new Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criterion 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 recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." After a cursory look, I'm that a substantial percentage of all featured lists fail this. What should be done? Nominate for removal one by one? Remove all in a batch? Cool3 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WT:FLC, since more users watch that page. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Limit to number of running FLRC noms?

At the rate we're going, FLRC will be overloaded. I think there should be limit on how many running FLRCs there can be at a time. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps 10? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There are 11 right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on a limit. FLC has no limit, why should this?  iMatthew :  Chat  22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason TRM was added as delegate was so that we could have more nominations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the time of FLRC's?

With the large effort in cleaning out the bad FL's, we are clearly seeing a lot more FLRC's produced. I think it might work out better, if the time an FLRC took place was shortened from a week to 10 days. It's the length FLC's use, and it would probably reduce the backlog, which is already piling up.  iMatthew :  Chat  14:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean from two weeks to 10 days. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread moved from WT:FLC by Dabomb87 (talk) at 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Either that, or perhaps we could just go ahead and delist after an FLRC has over "Arbitrary # here" (5?) Delist and no Keep votes. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to vote-based delistings. WP:FAR doesn't operate on that system; we should go off WP:CONSENSUS, not votes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant more of a "we should invoke WP:SNOW so as not to waste time." NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one out right now that can be snowed, but only because a discussion already occurred. And yes, I did mean two weeks.  iMatthew :  Chat  22:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The shortening could just be temporary, until it settles down again - rst20xx (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In short: no. The only exceptions that I'll make are those that are clearly outlined at the speedy delist criteria at the top of WP:FLRC. In other words, bring a tangible consensus to merge from the article's talk—which should be the preferred method of handling this, not FLRCs—and then I would close after about a week (depending on what day the nomination was brought forth, as GimmeBot operates on a fixed schedule). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Lists of universities in Canada/archive1 meets the "speedy delist" criteria because of this discussion.--Crzycheetah 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I know we want to follow the correct process, but there is really no point in keeping it open any longer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary forking in present FLs

I don't have the time to go through nominating them, but List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan, List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York, and List of state highways in Hamilton County, New York are unnecessary forked lists of what should be broader topics. Also, most of them are very short lists and I am not sure how they passed in the first place. Somebody pls nominate them. Nergaal (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of top-division football clubs in CONMEBOL countries are unreferrenced and not updated. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are not already there, addd these lists to WT:FLT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Delist and merge" comments

I'm seeing this a lot recently, and I think people need to remember that merging is specifically an editorial decision that FLRC has no sway over. The only purpose of this page is to determine whether a list keeps its bronze star. If it fails 3b, then that's a valid delist !vote, but a "merge" !vote is something appropriate for AfD, not here. I'd like people to keep comments solely focused on "keep" or "delist" as to avoid any misconceptions. The hell that is the notability debate doesn't need to be dragged here also. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and well said. We don't even want to delve into those discussions... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also finding the oppose !votes annoying. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Instructions

The instructions needed updating post-preload implementation. I think I've got the main points but the wording might need tweaking. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election!

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Delegate election

Hi all. We're going to be holding an election to determine a new FLRC delegate. If you wish to become a delegate, add your nomination by Monday, September 14th at 23:59 (UTC). Voting starts on Tuesday and ends on Saturday. Further information/instructions are on the page. iMatthew ^talk at 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Criterion 3.b

Looking at the listings in the Charts section under Music at WP:FL it is interesting to note that of the 26 lists there most don't really follow this criteria. Since this would include a larger number of lists, I thought it would be appropriate to open a discussion here. There are:

• 9 lists with the title "Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 200x"
• 7 lists names "Hot 100 number-one singles of 200x (United States)"
• 2 lists named "Hot 100 number-one singles of 200x (Canada)"

These three cases are in my opinion a clear breaking of the criterion 3.b, as they can me merged into lists like "Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000s" (a list for 1990s exists!), "Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (United States)", and "Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (Canada)". Such lists exist for List of UK number-one singles from the 1990s List of UK number-one singles from the 2000s and I don't see what's different. Most of the 9+7+2 lists are on the short side, some barely having the 10 entries minimum. Nergaal (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force#3b. meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, you can see there's dozens of lists that potentially fail 3b. However, it would not be viable to nominate them all at once. If you feel the list fails 3b, I would first advise you to bring it up with the nominator(s) and relevant WikiProjects of the FL in question before nominating here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This might...

... be a good time to nominate one or two more FLRCs. I know there are a few already, but I don't think I've ever seen as few as 19 FLCs. Probably an idea not to go for discography or football though, otherwise lists that could have been saved might be demoted because the ideal person for the job had their hands full. Just a thought.

Regards, --WFC-- 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of acquisitions of X

I think that of the current 12 such lists, only 3 are truly long enough to warrant a separate article. Most of the others could be easily merged into a yet-created article History of X. I hope somebody will keep this proposal in mind. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Add a requirement for a talk page request first

At Featured Article Review it's now a requirement to raise the issues at the article talk page first, and allow a certain amount of time for them to be addressed before taking it to FAR. I find it strange that they have done so, given that they already have a two-stage process. But I think it's a simple measure that would translate very well to FLRC, placing a bit more emphasis on improvement in the first instance. Thoughts? —WFC— 19:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all. That said, I actually did an informal review of a list that I didn't think met current FL criteria on the list's talk page and was promptly reamed for it by the primary editor, who said, essentially, "That's how it is and it's going to stay that way". So sometimes it's inviting trouble. — KV5 • Talk • 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And talk page concerns often are ignored. That's happened to me a few times, where I left some talk page comments in which I made it clear I was considering taking the list to FLR, only for nobody to respond. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea to bring concerns to the talk page first, especially if the editor who is maintaining the list is still active. I don't have an opinion as to whether that should be a requirement or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried the "at risk" category for a while, this was essentially a re-review on the talkpage. It drew a lot of hostility. I'm happy to stick with reviewer's judgements on whether a list can be salvaged outside the process or if it needs a serious examination within FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow... hadn't expected this to come unstuck. I have come across problems on list talk pages in the past, but the main one was over a former contextless list of names that I had the gall to convert and take through FLC; such was one editor's furore that I had to go to WikiProject Football and the Sounders task force for explicit approval. Hadn't realised that problems of this nature were anywhere near as widespread as this thread suggests. You live and learn I guess! —WFC— 09:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd very much prefer if someone left a talk-page comment before considering FLRC. It is just polite and should result in an improvement with the minimum of fuss and grief. Talk pages are how issues are raised and addressed with articles all the time, featured or otherwise. If someone responds badly or ignores such a message, then that just reflects badly on them (assuming the original nominators/maintainers are still active). Colin°^Talk 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Having a suggestion to resolve issues on the talkpage first would be nice but I don't think it would really help. I think most of the noms at FLRC (wether they are kept in the end or not) get a good amount of work because they are listed here. Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The idea of prior talk page notification is not without merit, but I'm concerned about whether potential nominators will want to go through all the steps. FAR, which used to be very active, has slowed substantially, to the point where it's been less active than FLRC lately. In the last month and a half, I count four noms that weren't pulled for lack of talk page notification. It's the slowest I've seen FAR be, and I can't help but wonder if the process is too much for people to invest their time in. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Strawberry on Vanilla

The 31 hour ban doesn't seem to have had the desired effect. The user has nominated six seasons lists for removal purely because he objected to the reasonable requests to improve List of Santos FC seasons because he based it on similar lists that were promoted, in some cases, over two years ago. As I'm not an admin I can't deal with the situation but surely this is WP:POINT and nominating six FLRCs at once is not exactly good practice. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the behaviour is disruptive to prove a point indeed. However, since I'm intimately involved, I'd rather not wield the might admin sword. Someone else can do that.... My preference would be to just run the Manchester United one and ignore the others, thus proving the stupidity of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, the stupid thing regarding the Liverpool list being nominated is that I recently imrpoved the table and it is now sortable and meets WP:ACCESS. The fact that he has not seemed to recognise this, in my eyes at least, proves that this is purely WP:POINT. Its a ridiculous situation, if he had put this much effort into fixing the problems on the Santos list he would solved the problems within a day. NapHit (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't disagree with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all of the nominations should be removed now. They are so pointy that it's impossible for me to take them seriously. I'm probably not even going to bother reviewing them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't his continual disruptive behavior be mentioned at someplace like WP:ANI? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite probably. Also, Giants, if you remove them all, that would get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the bans have not had an effect. The user is edit-warring with myself and another editor he has had past disagreements with over the simple matter of the width of a template, which was, of course, edited without discussion. The template in this case was an infobox, which widely affects a large number of articles. ANI may indeed be the next and most proper course of action. — KV5 • Talk • 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So when you and your friend revert anything it is called "editing". But when I do it, it is edit-warring...noted. Your hypocricy already showed when "enforcing" regulations. Now, it almost seems like I need a permission slip to implemment a letter or number. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for this discussion, so I've replied on the user's talk page. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Limit to one at a time, like FLC

Hello all. Given the recent spate of multiple nominations from a single editor who would be unable to cope with (intially) 40 and then five concurrent nominations, I propose we add a clause in the instructions, similar to FLC that limits this to a single nomiation. It makes sense, particularly given our current example where a nominator raises the same issue(s) on a number of lists, all of which could be simply updated rather than go via FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just think we need a ban on block nominations like the most recent one. It not only puts pressure on the nominator to keep track of everything, but it's difficult on the projects when a mass nomination occurs. If someone takes an interest in saving lists of a certain type, it's almost impossible for them when five are up at once. It doesn't even have to be a multiple-nomination ban, but just something that says you can't quickly nominate multiple lists in the same field. I would support something like that in a heartbeat. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I'm just trying to come up with something useful and neutral and not 100% related to the nonsense that's going on here right now. By the way, should you feel that you want to axe these nominations, feel free. I'm too involved to do anything without it being perceived as something sinister. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree too. I think all our time today could have been much better spent than by arguing the toss over six (he's just done another one, but hasn't transcluded it) FLRCs in which half the reasons for nomination aren't even true...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to apologise for not stepping in but already being accused of misuse of my "admin powers" has kind of constrained my attitude to "wait and see it all blow up in his face". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well let's see if we can get a good result. I've made a fair start at bringing List of Manchester United F.C. seasons up to current standards, and HonorTheKing has put a huge effort into making the table sort sensibly. All of this helps spread good practice among other editors, and we've established values for background colours to replace gold, silver, etc. that meet WCAG 2.0. As a spin-off from List of Birmingham City F.C. seasons, I've learned that ↑ and ↓ are not spoken by JAWS (screen reader), so I've created {{↑}} and {{↓}} (aka {{up-arrow}}, {{down-arrow}}) that can be used in the same way as the dagger ones we made previously. Not a bad couple of days if you look at it that way!

To address your question, I think it would be sensible to prohibit mass nominations to FLCR, although perhaps a couple at a time might be ok - or even "you can't nominate a second until your first has established some sort of consensus". Maybe keeping it to one would be simpler. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Mass FLRC nominations are as inappropriate as mass FLC nominations unless a prior discussion determines otherwise. I support the addition of a one FLRC at a time guideline. — KV5 • Talk • 19:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLT

Anybody still paying attention to that list of potential FLRCs? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

/archive1

I'm confused — why isn't Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Provinces of the Philippines/archive1 located at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Provinces of the Philippines? Nyttend (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes template coding and archiving easier. Do you have a problem with the practice? Goodraise 18:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Last resort

Is Featured list removal a last resort page? I nominated a page for removal a couple of days ago Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1 and got a nasty obscene message which among other thing said I should not have nominated it here as it's a last resort. Is this true? If so, this needs to be on the instructions page. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

FLRC is not a tool in the dispute resolution process. It's not designed to be. While there's generally nothing wrong with nominating an article you think fails the featured list criteria at FLRC, it's not always a smart move to do so. Especially when done in response to a reversion, it can come across as strong-arming. My suggestion would be to withdraw the nomination, apologize and follow WP:DR. To put it differently, you haven't done anything wrong per se, you've just chosen a somewhat insensitive course of action. Goodraise 07:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't intend it as dispute resolution, and my main reason for nominating was not related to the dispute. Perhaps the page should have a before nominating section like all the deletion pages? Ego White Tray (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a deletion page, and there's nothing to be done "before nominating", at least nothing I can think off. Goodraise 01:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It might be a good idea to ask the appropriate Wikiproject or a frequent editor of the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2013, Anime Lists for FLRC

I have a list of articles I'm interested in sending to FLRC. If possible, I'd like someone to review my opinions here. Thanks DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Concern

I have a concern about the FLRC process that has to be taken care of. I've looked at the logs (October, November, December) and there are articles that have been voted to be removed. Yet, after they were "closed", they weren't processed. Because of that, the lists that were voted for removal still have the bronze star on it. This is something that really needs to be looked at. GamerPro64 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

FLRC Closure

Giants2008, Hahc21, NapHit, Crisco 1492, SchroCat, I've noticed that this FLRC has been open since June 2013. Seems like time to close after 16 months. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force

No sure how many of the guys still around here are aware of this list. Somebody with time should check out which of the entries there have not made it to FLRC yet. Nergaal (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It reminds me of the project FAC is currently (since ~January) pursuing- they made a list of all the FAs that haven't had an FAR of some sort since they were nominated, and are taking all the 2005-2006 ones through FAR at a fairly fast clip. They seem to be having a higher-than-average success rate at actually cleaning them up, too. I had considered the same idea for FLC, though given the current notably-high rate of FLRs we've been seeing in the past couple months, I haven't put much thought into it yet.

Anyways, I flipped through the "Not up to current standards" ones on that page that weren't crossed out and they all needed to go to FLR. Some of them were almost entirely unreferenced, even if the structure looked sound. FLC standards have changed pretty drastically since 2006; if the current pace of FLRs slows down we should probably start rifling through the older FLs and send them off, and this page seems a good starting point. --PresN 06:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Pls list

• List of birds of Puerto Rico--Moxy (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Moxy: In order to nominate a list for featured list removal, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. You appear to have done step 4 without doing steps 1, 2, and 3, which is why nothing is showing up. --PresN 00:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I am good not spending another 30 mins trying to do all this ....I see why so many just dont even try....most complicated thing here on Wikipedia...this is coming from someone who spends lots of time with coding. -- Moxy (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moxy: Not trying to be rude, but it's literally just "paste this template, click the red link, and write the reason you're nominating the list". It's the exact same process as it is for nominating an FLC, FAC, or FAR. I'm honestly confused how you could have been on Wikipedia for 10 years and 80000 edits and find that the "most complicated thing here on Wikipedia". That said, would you like me to go ahead and set up the FLRC page for you, so you just have to fill in the reason you're nominating the list for removal? --PresN 01:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)