Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2009

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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 10:34, 27 June 2009 [1].

---

List of English football champions

Notified: WikiProject England, WikiProject Football, WikiProject Football/England task force, Oldelpaso, Peanut4, Xenomorph1984

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't adhere to the following standards for FLs:

• Lead. The lead is much to short and I don't think it is very engaging.
• Structure. The article does not include any table sort.
• Style. The article has only one picture. It does not make sufficient use of colour and layout is not too professional either.
• References. The article is totally devoid of inline citations. The references are also probably not the best ones out there (the one for the top scorers is even a Danish; without noting that it links to a Danish page actually)

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you notify relevant WikiProjects and primary contributors about this FLRC using {{FLRCMessage}}, as described in the FLRC instructions? Also, don't forget to list the notifications here. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. OdinFK (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This was promoted in early 2006, which makes it prehistoric in Wikipedia terms. That said, while the prose needs a facelift in terms of referencing, I don't see much wrong with the list part. The exception here is the "winner by decade" section which has appeared since I last looked at the article. This is an arbitrary distinction which adds little extra information, and I will remove it.

I fail to see how colour is required, or how it would improve the list. If anything it would make the list less accessible. The columns in the list would not obviously benefit from sortability. Sorting by club would group a club's wins, but this is already done in a more appropriate manner by the separate Total titles won section. I'll get to work on referencing. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Take a look at German football champions for example (just for comparison). Colour can be used in a useful way as demonstrated there and many other newer FLs: You can gray out the suspended seasons and distinguish the Double/Treble winners. Also as far as I know keys should go to the top of the list, no the bottom. As for sortability: It makes sense with this specific list and it is a feature required for FLs. I don't see why the List of English football champions should be an exception to that rule. Sure, you can find the information for first places later in the article, but maybe I want to group for second place or top scorer. If you add another column for the number of goals of the top scorer you could even sort for that. While some might say this is pretty useless it is information many people like to access (granted this is my personal experience).

I also think that each of those sections should have an introduction. You differentiate between "Football League", "Football League First Division", and "Premier League". Why? As a reader this is information which makes me get the bigger picture. More generally the arcticle leaves me totally in the dark on the development of the English football championship. I don't want to point at German football champions so much, but that is the article I'm most familiar with in this area: Read the intros to the various sections. You are not just presented with random data, but you get to know the background, too, making the data useful in the first place.

As a kind of disclaimer: I was involved a lot in the article German football champions and even nominated it for FL once. It got not promoted. This is not some kind of revenge crusade. Actually I used other FLs of football champions (including England) as a blueprint to improve the original German football champions. With all the comments people gave about why GFC should not be promoted yet it occurred to me that FAs are hold to extremely high standards these days and most of the other FLs in this area probably don't adhere to these standards any more either. Actually articles getting promoted to FL are a lot more than just a bunch of referenced data with a short intro. No offense, but I feel this describes the List of English football champions too well right now. The same is also true for the FLs Danish football champions, Italian football champions, and Swedish football champions, but I'll probably get to that later, depending on the outcome of this discussion. OdinFK (talk)

Individual responses to some of your criticisms (from Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

"Colour can be used in a useful way as demonstrated there and many other newer FLs: You can gray out the suspended seasons and distinguish the Double/Treble winners." I don't think we should just add colour for the sake of adding colour. Colour should not be used as the sole indicator of important information per our accessibility guidelines. I don't see colour adding anything in this list. Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Also as far as I know keys should go to the top of the list, no the bottom." Personal preference isn't it, I have produced lists with them at the top and the bottom? I don't believe there is a set guideline anywhere. Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"As for sortability: It makes sense with this specific list and it is a feature required for FLs. I don't see why the List of English football champions should be an exception to that rule. Sure, you can find the information for first places later in the article, but maybe I want to group for second place or top scorer." FL criteria 4: Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. It is not mandatory to have the sortable function, it should be used where it is helpful: I don't see it being particularly helpful here, especially because the list is fractured into separate parts. Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"I also think that each of those sections should have an introduction. You differentiate between "Football League", "Football League First Division", and "Premier League". Why? As a reader this is information which makes me get the bigger picture." The lead does the job of explaining why this is, I don't see the need to repeat this for each section. Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"More generally the arcticle leaves me totally in the dark on the development of the English football championship" This isn't the history of English football article, that is what the wikilinks are for. This list introduces some of the history but invites the reader to explore different articles if they want the comprehensive history of English football. Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments – On a quick look, I see a lot of short paragraphs in the lead. A few of these could be easily combined to improve the flow of the writing. Also, the photo should be moved to the top of the article. In the references, I'd question whether foot.dk is a reliable source, not knowing who's behind it. Overall it needs work, but I do believe this list can be fixed during this FLRC. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the foot.dk ref with one from RSSSF, for which reliability has beeen discussed in football FACs passim. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also merged some of the paragraphs. Woody (talk) 11:33, 11 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 10:34, 27 June 2009 [2].

---

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Notified: NuclearWarfare, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force, Talk:Avatar:The Last Airbender

I am nominating this for featured list removal because almost all of it is sourced unreliably. I can't fathom Amazon ever being a reliable source for anything. Also, what makes TVShowsOnDVD.com or the EzyDVD.au site (which is just a bare URL, not in a citation template) a reliable source? Both appear to be sales sites like Amazon as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep

• Amazon is discouraged for use as a source because of its commercial nature, not because of its unreliability. See for example, this RSN thread.
• TVShowsOnDVD is used in other Featured Lists, such as List of 24 episodes and List of Seinfeld episodes, both of which I had nothing to do with. Per their copyright policy, I believe they are affiliated with TV Guide, and are not a sales site.

• TVShowsOnDVD was proved reliable at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Last of the Summer Wine/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• EzyDVD.au is an Australian version of Amazon, if I do believe. They are also a sales site, but per the RSN link I provided earlier, it is fine to use it to cite basic information. If you really want, I'll double source it, and put it in the proper citation format; those links have been added after the FLC, and I had forgot to properly format them after another user had added it.

NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. I'm still not sold on the sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• TVShowsonDVD.com is indeed a reliable source. It is not just affiliated with TV Guide (website, not magazine or TV network -- they're all under different ownerships now), it is owned by TV Guide website's parent company One Equity Partners. Amazon and EzyDVD are also used amongst many GA, FA and FLs as reliable sources, for technical information only, although a non-sales site is preferable.
• As for page content, some improvements could be made, but they would have been better raised at the talk page first:

• WP:OVERLINKING
• WP:PEACOCK in first sentence
• Actually, while the page is being worked on, it might be worth finding someone to copyedit the Lede, just to make sure it's all good.
• There's a lot of whitespace in the writer and director columns that the episode title columns could borrow from (this are the most important column, after all)
• Footnotes should not use an alphabetical system rather than a number system as it conflicts with regular references (see WP:FOOT for current accepted practices)
• Footnotes 4 through 13: So what if they can't be verified online? We have {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} - can any of these options be used?
• Airdates are unreferenced

• Referenced from IGN, see referemces section. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Are the numbers being represented as production codes actually production codes, or just an episode number "106" being the sixth episode of season 1. (I imagine for animated episodes, more than one is being produced at any one time, and I doubt they are produced and completed in order they were broadcast.) cf. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request for Comments: Production codes

• I haven't gotten a chance to see the DVD they come from, but there is a footnote that says that they come from the production commentary of the final season's DVD. I was thinking of possibly replacing it with something like List of Numb3rs episodes currently is. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Skittlepedia effect needs to go. I believe it fails Criterion 5(a). "Visual appeal. Makes suitable use of ... colour." Visual appeal doesn't mean looking like a bag of candy, and colours shouldn't be used just to make things look pretty. They should be used to identify something. This one of my points from the first FLC that I felt went unresolved.
• Finally, this last remark may seem ironic as I pressed hard for it at the FLC, but there has been a turn around of late with regard to transcluding episode tables from season pages. Yes, it means there are two pages to maintain, but it also means that if the information is wrong on one page, it isn't wrong on two.

It needs a bit of work, but it shouldn't be too hard to do. Hopefully it won't be delisted. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the colors help identify the themes of each season. They are not just there for looks. — Jake Wartenberg 23:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a source for that? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh man, I totally forgot about this FLRC till yesterday. As for the themes bit, the seasons in order are named: "Book 1: Water", "Book 2: Earth", and "Book 3: Fire". (Just look at the individual articles; there ought to be a source there). As for the rest of the things that Matthewedwards brought up, I can do them, but I'm rather busy with other things I want to get done first. Would it be possible for someone to close this, and just bring this up on the talk page in a few weeks? I could handle all of those minor details then. NW (Talk) 17:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment But try to remove commercial links. On the other hand they are verifiable links, which gives true information which is most important. Yet I cannot vote untill I read featured candidate guidelines fully. Kasaalan (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The commercial links are irreplaceable. I have tried to find better links, but to no avail; the information doesn't exist elsewhere in a reliable source. NW (Talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Currently fails 5(a). As Matthew mentioned, "Skittlepedia effect needs to go". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crzycheetah (talk • contribs)

• Note - The "Skittlepedia" effect was removed by Rambo's Revenge. I forgot that the header could still be in color, and so the article looks fine to me now. NW (Talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As NW said above I removed the transclusion skittle colouring. For the last half hour I've been fiddling with options for unskittling the DVD region box. The colour could be removed, but with a complete and relatively long re-coding there is a different option. Opinions? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I prefer the way it is now, but if we were to go with the uncolored option, I rather like the second one. Also, is there any way to apply these changes to the season pages as well? NW (Talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you clarify that, by "second one" did you mean the second one of three (titled Uncolour) or the second of the uncoloured versions (titled Completely re-code)? Also does anyone else have a preference, baring in mind any colour differences can be changed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I meant the Completely re-code one. NW (Talk) 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: See no real reason why sources aren't reliable. They all check out. The Flash ^{talk} 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I removed the skittlepedia effect from the table and recoded the DVD tables (on the season pages as well), which was IMO an improvement. Amazon and the other sales sites, are discourage from use, but they are reliable and I assume they are being used because no better sources can be found. I'm not wild about the empty Region 4 tables but if they are problamatic they can easily be removed. I see no problems that would make me want to delist. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:21, 25 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 17:25, 21 June 2009 [3].

---

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan

Notified: WP US Roads; primary editor already aware of FLRC.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I think it fails criteria 3.b. This article is a content fork of the Marquette County, and has only 9 entries. Nergaal (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Doesn't fail 3b in my opinion. It would be ridiculous to merge the article in its entirety to Marquette County, Michigan, and if we pruned the content, we'd lose valuable information. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The article broadly covers the state highways in Marquette County and would be too unwieldly to merge into Marquette County, Michigan. Dough4872 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think this is a content fork of Marquette County, Michigan, but it might be a fork of a more general article on ALL highways in Marquette County, Michigan. Exactly how many county highways are there in Marquerre County? If it is sufficiently few, then both county and state highways should be listed in one article - rst20xx (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This is ridiculous, Nergaal, Imzadi1979 has spent almost 15 months working on this entire topic and you're going to crash it? This article meets FL criteria, and I have asked if he would be willing to add the 2 decommissioned routes, which would make it 11 items, thus keeping it past the 10 item thing.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Okay, okay, relax everyone. From my point of view, the list is not in gross breach of 3b. It could do with some tidying up (e.g. moving those sprayed around references into a nice ref column for instance), the lead could be expanded a touch and moved away from "... list of ... " leading sentence. The precision of the road lengths is incredible (i.e. 0.001 km = 1 centimetre/centimeter, is this really how accurately US highways are measured?), sorting per municipality is a complete waste of time - no sense in sorting per free text, references have a mixture of linked and unlinked dates, are we overcategorised (i.e. State highways of Michigan is presumably a subset of Roads and highways in Michigan?). Little things, but enough of them to need addressing. Agreed it falls into the gap for "min 10 items" but this "limit" is under discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Not trying to be confrontational here but I don't massively appreciate you saying "FLRC director-sort-of-bloke calling", it's like you're saying "I'm in charge around here so I know how 3.b) works better than you do." While I disagree with Nergaal that merging into Marquette County, Michigan is a good idea, I think until we know exactly how many county routes are in Marquette County, it's impossible to say whether this needlessly splits county highways off separately from other highways. Also I think that Mitch's reaction is overdone because even if this one article hits a snag, it's just this one article, which can always be brought back up to scratch, it's not like Nergaal's nominating EVERY article in the topic for removal, just one - rst20xx (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, ok, once more. This whole "nomination" seems to have become unduly inflamed. I'm definitely not asserting anything other than my opinion. I've happily remove my jovial comment. I'm pretty sure all I did was to try to identify the issues I saw immediately when looking at the list. I certainly have nothing against Nergaal, nothing against Marquette County, no hidden agenda. I just saw this FLRC getting really heated really quickly. It turns out that I've made it worse. Point is we need to focus on the criteria, and in my opinion it's borderline 3b, nothing more. But more significantly for me were the other issues I raised. So hopefully we can all relax, focus on the list and then come to a solution. Also, it's essential that we all learn that "merging" is simply nothing to do with this process. If we demote a list, fine. If we don't, fine. Merging a list into the main article is nothing to do with FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  OK, that's fine, sorry. But 3b failures is when a list shouldn't even exist on its own in the first place, and when a list possibly fails 3b because it should be combined with another list that doesn't even exist yet, it's difficult to know where to take it. You can't open a merger discussion because there's nothing to merge to - rst20xx (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question can anyone give me any reason why this list should not be a part of Transportation in Marquette County, Michigan, or perhaps Roads in Marquette County, Michigan instead? If the latter, not all the other roads need to be listed, but instead some comments about the other road types present in the whole county would suffice. In such a form, the article would not be artificially trimmed to a limit that barely passes minimum FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Extra question - have you notified the relevant editors that you have nominated this for demotion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • In Nergaal's defence he put a note about this in the FTC discussion that caused this FLRC, which I would be grossly shocked if Imzadi1979 isn't watching. He'll know - rst20xx (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Not the point really. We tend to notify specific users and specific wikiprojects whenever a list is nominated for demotion, and those notified are listed in the FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I have notified the roads wikiproject as it is the only one listed on the talk page. I am sorry if I did not put too much careness into this nomination, as I hoped that by now the main contributor would have asked for a review himself. Nergaal (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — and a few comments from the originator of the list:

• No, I wasn't specifically notified of this, but that's beside the point; I still found it, and I'm commenting now.
• There are 9 current or recently former state trunkline highways in the largest county in the state of Michigan. There are two highway designations that were once used that could be added, but there's a catch. The highway that used to be M-15 was renumbered to US 41, and the highway that used to be M-45 was renumbered to M-95. The highways didn't change hands, the roadways weren't moved, just the numbers on the signs and maps changed. The current M-15 is near Saginaw and the current M-45 is near Grand Rapids... both on the other peninsula of Michigan and nowhere near Marquette County. The history of M-15 as it relates to Marquette County is covered in the US 41 article. Ditto on M-45/M-95.
• There are roughly a very conservative estimate over 200 county-maintained roads in the county. As explained in the actual article, if it's not a state highway or a city street in Michigan, it's a county-maintained road. Michigan hasn't allowed townships (the only other type of municipality in the county) to maintain roadways since 1932. I would actually put a better estimate at the number of county-maintained roads closer to a thousand.
• The article already discusses the other types of roadways besides the two types of state trunklines in the county.
• As for the accuracy of the mileages, the MDOT Control Section Atlas does measure control section lengths to the thousandth of a mile. Yes, I understand that means that the article is giving the lengths of the highway to the nearest 5-foot increment, but that is what the source says. I actually need to go through all the Michigan highway articles before long since the 2009 atlas has been published, but the Marquette County map is at [4] (P.S. 0.001 km would be a meter, not a centimeter, by the way. The measurements from MDOT are in miles.)
• As for other ways to improve the article, I'm all ears.
• I will oppose trying to shoe-horn all the county roads into the article due to sheer size. I wouldn't have an authoritative source for county road lengths since the county road commission doesn't publish an equivalent to the control section atlas. My only source to catalog the county roads would be a county Land Atlas and Plat Book, which is coming to me here in the Grand Rapids area by interlibrary loan request.

Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. #2, I didn't ask for an FLRC after the comments on the FTC because I don't think this article and its topic merit demotion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, if it is closer to 1000 then we obviously can't include them here and for me, that would be the issue addressed. I would like to know the number though so I await the arrival of the book - rst20xx (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Per Mitch's comment. –CG 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I feel it meets the criteria, although it could use some tweaks mentioned in earlier comments - making the municipalities column unsortable, massaging the first sentence of the lead, etc. Geraldk (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I did some cleanup work, but I don't know how to make that column unsortable. I added in separate rows for the renumbered former designations, moved the references over to a separate column, cleaned up various other little things, and massaged the prose at the start of the lead. Any further suggestions or comments? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I took care of the unsortability. I'd like to reiterate again that FLR does not exist as a tool to force editors to merge articles. Further, I think that a suggestion that this could theoretically be merged into an article that doesn't exist yet is a little iffy. Finally, I think everyone who is forcefully trying to implement 3b should take care not to be overly zealous in trying to implement it - this is an excellent list with a significant and useful body of information. Geraldk (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article meets all criteria. This is what criterion 3b says; let's break it down:
  • " In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists;" Check
  • "it is not a content fork," Check
  • "does not largely recreate material from another article," Check
  • "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Check – Adding a list of roads as well as the necessary history and background information to the main article would be adding UNDUE weight, IMO. Also, I doubt there is available information besides this to create a "Roads/Transportation in Marquette County, Michigan" article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to meet the criteria ... – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:20, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 19:42, 7 June 2009 [5].

---

List of London Underground stations

Notified: WP London Transport, Grunners, SilasW, Sunil060902, Chris j wood, Timrollpickering, DavidCane, Thyrduulf

Archive of Previous Featured List Removal Review - closed 25 February 2008
I feel that this no longer meets the requirements for some reasons.

A large reason is that in the lead (2 and possibly 3) it talks about the Docklands Light Railway has been included for integration purposes. I would like to make my continuing argument that the Docklands Light Railwauy is not part of the London Underground and even has its own list of stations. This was created on a previous suggestion but it seems to me pointless to have them twice. Another point on integration is that now the London Overground exists, it has a lot in common e.g. run by TfL, same ticketing system, appear on the London Underground map. As the London Overground is quite well integrated into the London UIndeground, should that be included here?

Separately, questions have been raised over one of the sources used - Clive's Underground guide. Does this count as reliable (whilst it may be useful) and easy to use? There is also a lack of adquate citations. All usage and dates should be referenced for example. Also, the photos i think should go in the table and there be one of every station, not just have an example of a station (which seems both LU and not) beginning with a letter of the alphabet.

4 and possibly 6. Simply south (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Most of those concerns could have been fixed by editing the article rather than nominating it for removal. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OpposeKeep - As the previous comment suggests, the list should be edited and not removed (there is a National Rail stations list for London). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What does "Oppose" mean? Do you mean "Keep"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment To clarify the criteria given above for removal of featured article status, the following are reproduced from Wikipedia:Featured list criteria:

2 - Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.

3 - Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.

4 - Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.

6 - Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text. --DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OpposeKeep. I agreed with Jenuk1985 that the issues raised are not sufficient to warrant nomination for removal of the lists featured status. The current condition of the article is generally a result of the February 2008 review (see above), but reviewing each of the four criteria given above in turn, I believe the article still meets the criteria:

2 - Lead - I don't see that the lead fails under this heading as it clearly identifies the scope of the list and what is included and why. The issue as to whether the DLR stations should be included is different to whether the lead is correctly formatted with respect to the present scope. The inclusion or not of the DLR stations has previously been discussed on the list's talk page here, here and here (each time raised by the nominator) and without a clear preference to change being stated.

3 - Comprehensiveness - The list meets the criteria in this respect as it includes all the current stations identified in its scope and gives a thorough summary of the information relevant to each (lines serving station, dates opened, location, zone, previous names and usage)

4 - Structure - The list meets this criteria as it is alphabetically ordered and sortable on many of the columns. All stations in the list are linked directly to the relevant article. Section headings for notes, see also, references and further reading are provided

6 - Visual appeal - The list is appropriately formatted using tables and includes a number of appropriate images.

With regard to the wider issues raised, these are not relevant to the featured list status but are considered below:

Should the list include the DLR stations? In my view it should for the following reasons:

• Most readers will not know the semantic difference between the London Underground and the DLR - they both appear on the map published by London Underground under the title tube map [6] without the DLR being specifically distinguished as different from the tube lines.
• Leaving off the DLR stations would create an apparent gap in the scope of such a list.
• The existence of a separate List of DLR stations does not necessitate the removal of the DLR stations from this list.

Should the list be called List of London Underground stations or something else:

• In the previous discussions as to whether the list should be split to omit the DLR stations, suggestions of alternative names were put forward (List of Transport for London stations proposed by myself and List of London Underground and DLR stations proposed by the nominator). The issue was not followed up further at that time.

Should the list include the London Overground stations?

• There is an argument for this now that these services are also operated by Transport for London, but there is a distinction here that some editors might raise in that the former East London Line remains under the ownership of TfL whereas the North London line, West London line and Watford DC lines also served by the Overground remain in the ownership of network rail
• It would, therefore, be comprehensive with regard to all TfL operated services
• But whether or not the London Overground stations are included does not effect the current status of the list because it does not pretend to include them.

Adequacy of citations:

• To put exactly the same citation against every single entry in the usage column would be ridiculous overkill - both in terms of visual appeal (it would likely lead to an argument that the list would fail on criteria 6 due to unnecessary clutter) and coding (it would massively expand the wikicode required for no real benefit). It is also unnecessary as the whole usage column is already cited via the note in the heading (see note [E]). The reference against note [E] gives the citation.
• Adding a citation for every date would be overkill for exactly the same reason as for usage and would lead to even greater clutter. The same method of providing a note at the head of the column (note [D]) is used with explanatory sub-notes (*, #, † and ‡) as necessary. The multiple references against the sub-notes give the necessary citations.

Use of the Clive's Underground lines Guide (CULG) for the citations:

• This is used in the article because it provides an external reference for readers to reach additional information on the subject. The use has been queried in the Featured Article Candidacy for the Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway article and has been answered there. That said, CULG lists Doug Rose's map The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History amongst its own references. This gives opening and closing dates for all tube stations and dates when services changed between lines and it appears to have used for the CULG station opening dates and line changes. This map is already listed as reference 14 in this article, so most of the references 1-13 could be replaced by just this one. However, the wider information available at CULG makes it a preferable external and accessible source than the hard copy map.

Adding a picture for every station:

• The provision of an image for each station was discussed on the talk page here in October last year and I commented that the additional code required to add the images would take the article to over 100,000 bytes (too large) and would significantly increase the download time.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Simply South separated from DavidCane's comments above for readability (text in [] added for clarification of what Simply South is referring to):

[Should the list include the London Overground stations?]

[There is an argument for this now that these services are also operated by Transport for London, but there is a distinction here that some editors might raise in that the former East London Line remains under the ownership of TfL whereas the North London line, West London line and Watford DC lines also served by the Overground remain in the ownership of network rail]

That is not the only thing they share in common. Ticketing systems (although that may be a grey area as it also covers areas not LO), branding (then again, leads back to tfl). Many of the stations that the current ELLE is to cover are to be taken over by LO.

[Use of the Clive's Underground lines Guide (CULG) for the citations]

[This is used in the article because it provides an external reference for readers to reach additional information on the subject. The use has been queried in the Featured Article Candidacy for the Great Northern, Piccadilly & Brompton Railway article and has been answered there. That said, CULG lists Doug Rose's map The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History amongst its own references. This gives opening and closing dates for all tube stations and dates when services changed between lines and it appears to have used for the CULG station opening dates and line changes. This map is already listed as reference 14 in this article, so most of the references 1-13 could be replaced by just this one. However, the wider information available at CULG makes it a preferable external and accessible source than the hard copy map.]

[Adding a citation for every date would be overkill for exactly the same reason as for usage and would lead to even greater clutter. The same method of providing a note at the head of the column (note [D]) is used with explanatory sub-notes (*, #, † and ‡) as necessary. The multiple references against the sub-notes give the necessary citations.]

There does need to be citation for the notes section.

[Use of the Clive's Underground lines Guide (CULG) for the citations] Then again, i could probably provide an external one, in good faith by Brown "London Railway Atlas" stating the dates. However, Clive's Guide is still an overreliance on one source, even if just for that area.

[Adding a picture for every station] This could be sorted by such as what has been done with the heritage railway stations list which would reduce it. Whilst some coding needed, image size can easily be reduced so loading is reduced. For example, see List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley

I would like to add that the use of citations and images fall well within the featured list criteria. Simply south (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What does "Oppose" mean? Do you mean "Keep"? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I Oppose the removal of its Featured list status so that would be synonymous with Keep. --DavidCane (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This is a list of London Underground stations. " Featured lists don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs, such as List of Muni Metro stations for examples of more engaging leads. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Dabomb87. Just start the paragraph explaining what London Underground is should be fine. And regarding the inclusion dispute, please deal with that on the talk page, FLRC is not the proper forum for that.—Chris! _ct 02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OpposeKeep the removal of featured list status for the same reasons as given above, several of the concerns have been discussed (sometimes several times) on the talk page with consensus for the way things are. Others have not been discussed there at all. Regarding the pictures, my preference would be for one picture per station - I proposed this on the talk page and even produced a mockup back in October -see User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. I notice that the nominator has not commented on this at all - indeed the only response received as not favourable. Given this unenthusiastic response I did not continue with the mockup which took a significant amount of effort to produce, although I note that in the intervening time the equivalent (featured) list on the does include pictures, and also attractions/landmarks near the station. This is not to say that I don't think the present version can be improved - for example I like the way the presents the line information. However this is not the appropriate place for discussion such as this - it belongs on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢

Firstly, for those who don't like this nomination please treat it like a "Featured List Review". People should try and see reasons for this nom and not just jump at Simply south stating various "keep" !votes. Here are my responses to Simply south:

• Firstly I disagree with the argument that the DLR should be seperate. As for "[The DLR] even has its own list of stations". That is not an argument, the others do to just within their articles (e.g. London Underground Circle Line#Stations)
• The matter of including of the Overground should be resolved on the talk page, but my initial reaction (I may be wrong) is that there would be too much Overground to include and make this list overly large.
• I agree that "Clive's Underground guide" is not a reliable source. Clive states "it is mostly my personal matters and interests"[7] and while the infomation may be correct that does not make the source reliable. That said, if the books in further reading provide the same information I could see an argument for leaving them in as an immediately accessible source, and adding those books as general refs.
• Images in the table? Not sure, that would also require a lot of image checking, as just because an image is on Wiki does not make it eligible to be there. See some recent FL image reviews.

And here are some points of my own:

• The lead should be expanded. A bit of history about the Tube, for example mention first station/line to be used etc.
• The note system is old, and should be updated to one with proper working backlinks etc.

I see nothing here that cannot be fixed up, but I think there are improvements to be made. If this was a current FLC it wouldn't have my support right now. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Further comments:

• Additional citations for notes section - I assume that the additional citations considered to be required by Simply South are against notes [A] and [B]. These can be found somewhere, I am sure.
• Over reliance on Clive's Underground Line's Guide - Use of a single source is not inherently wrong if the information it contains is complete and accurate which I maintain CULG is. As I said above, the majority of the CULG refs could be replaced with a single reference to Doug Rose's map which gives all of the same information with regard to the tube stations and is listed in the CULG bibliography. Other sources would need to be found for the DLR stations and the opening dates of the main line parts of stations
• Suggestion for method of inserting station images - could Simply South give a link to the Heritage railway article referred. The Historic Houses in Crawley is an attractive list but only has about 40 images in it. An image for each tube and DLR station would require about 310 images.
• I agree with Dabomb87, Chris, Thryduulf and Rambo's Revenge that these issues should be discussed on the list's talk page. The lead can be reworked if required.
• If we are going to treat the corrective process as a featured list review we should first end this FLRC. --DavidCane (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Re your last point: There is no reason to end this. The FLRC process is basically the featured list review. We don't have a seperate process. Please do not worry about removal right now and focus on improvement. If all the comment are addressed, the outcome of this FLRC will likely be keep.—Chris! _ct 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from the FLRC director

• First, everyone who !voted "oppose", please change it to "keep" for the sake of my sanity. Next, this process is basically like a combination of FA's FAR and FARC, so all actionable suggestions should be dealt with. I'm not going to comment on the list this moment, but Rambo's points are particularly salient. I'd also advise everyone to cool down because the list does have issues that need addressing. As for now, this FLRC will remain open so long as these problems remain. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• • While I appreciate that the list is not perfect, there needs to be discussion on the talk page about most of the suggestions to determine consensus before implementation. Five days ago I started another discussion about the inclusion or otherwise of Tramlink, DLR and/or Overground stations on the list. Five months ago I started a discussion (with links to a demo) about pictures for each station. Both of these have received just a single comment, neither of them from user:Simply south who initiated this FLR. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually i did this in the middle of a busy period so i have not had time to look which i am doing now. Simply south (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- My main suggestion is that the lead be expanded to summarize the list more, and that the former names columns be in a format like Former name (date).--Truco 18:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just added which sections i was replying to for clarification. There is also no review page so this seemed the most appropriate page. And the citations reply i moved to where i think i meant to reply to.

To DavidCane: For the heritage station list, see List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom and the subpages ({{lhrs-top}} and {{lhrs-entry}}) in which the code is located. When i said the notes section i've realised i forgot to say also (and mainly) the names column.

To Rambo's Revenge: the DLR station list was part of the point of integration as recently systems have expanded and now they, including London Overground provide (nearly) the same integration, sharing the things i said. Inclusion of Overground btw does not mean inclusion of other National Rail stations in London other than those served by LO.

To Thryduulf: I was not aware of the list on your userpage until recently and i can see your point on that. I do not see how my response to DavidCane was unenthusiastic, i just gave a list of some solutions and some other points.

Simply south (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My "Unenthusiastic" description was commenting on the response to the mockup with images (David's comments and the lack of any other comment), not about your response to David. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

REFRESH

Now found the time to try and address the issues raised above:

• Firstly, as requested by the FLRC director, I have changed "opposes" above to "keeps". If that misinterprets anybody's opinion than please change it back.
• Secondly, let's summarise the issues raised and note the proposed actions:
  1. Content - should the list include DLR stations or not and should the name of the article be changed to reflect its content - both to be discussed separately (again) at the talk page discussion started by Thryduulf. Please make your views known there.
  2. Lead - rewrite needed to conform to current "List of ..." good style as suggested by Dabomb87.
  3. Citations - needs work. But not clear how to improve this without the data in the list being lost in hundreds of reference labels. Perhaps Rambos Revenge could elaborate on how this might be managed. Is it really necessary to have back links from the notes section to every note label, if the only way to do that is a mass of labels cluttering the data?
  4. Name change column - restructuring of the column to give the dates for the previous names were applicable as suggested by Truco.
  5. An Image for each station - no consensus on this seems to have been achieved on this matter so I propose that no change be made until we can be satisfied it will not detrimentally affect the download time for the page. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not clear how the List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom article mentioned by Simply South helps with the issue of adding images to the article because that article contains no images.
• Thirdly, assuming that the changes mentioned above are carried out, would the article meet the Featured List Criteria. I think it would pass.

If I've missed any actions add them below. --DavidCane (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that the use of code and on subpages could help to reduce the size. I know there are no images but look at the article\list. It is just a possible solution. Simply south (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the note/backlink issue, I was just thinking that having and notes like [a] and † given by [[#Notes|[a]]] etc. is quite a dated system. There are lots of current systems that could be used. {{ref}} would probably be the most similar to the existing system, but has the added benefit of linking directly to the relevent note. As for the actual referencing, general references are also fine, but currently it is not clear exactly what content in the table is cited. For example, the other names of stations should be cited, to avoid OR. Also have all those dates come from Clive's guide, because they should probably have a more reliable source than that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. All refs now link back to table. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I will look into the ref template to see how this will do the job. I'm in the process of going through the other names column at the moment and am using two alternative sources for the names and for the dates:

• Harris, Cyril M. (2006) [1977]. What's in a name?. Capital Transport. p. 25. ISBN 1-85414-241-0.
• Rose, Douglas (1999). The London Underground, A Diagrammatic History. Douglas Rose/Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-219-4. (to check the above).

I will add the cites for these when the entire column is revised. The dates in the date column will be verified with Rose's diagrammatic history. --DavidCane (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues

• "in the United Kingdom serving"-->in the United Kingdom that serves
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• "It is the oldest underground metro system in the world with its first section having been opened in 1863. "-->Its first section was opened in 1863, making it the oldest underground metro system in the world
  • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• "but rises to the surface in the outlying suburbs, with approximately 55 per cent of its routes being above ground."-->and rises to the surface in the outlying suburbs; approximately 55 per cent of its routes is above ground.
  • Done. Rephrased. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• "The system comprises eleven lines, serving 270 Underground stations"-->The system comprises 11 lines, serving 270 Underground stations
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• "The majority of the system is north of the River Thames with stations in the City of London or one of twenty-seven London boroughs."-->The system mostly operates north of the River Thames, with stations in the City of London and one of twenty-seven London boroughs.
  • Rephrased.--DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Instead of arbitrarily linking some symbols, can you add a key above the table?
  • Symbols removed as part of the reformatting of the table. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• WP:CAPTION, image captions that are sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html#dates a reliable source?
  • Removed, though I still need to track a source for the main line stations dates. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• The general references need last access dates.
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Year ranges need two digits in closing numbers; for example, "1874–7"-->1874–77 Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• "The system operates below ground in central London but rises to the surface in the outlying suburbs, with approximately 55 per cent of its routes being above ground."—"and rises". "with + noun + ing" ... try "; about 55% of the track is above ground". That's a different meaning (not whole routes above or below).
  • Revised lead. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Pity some of the columns look messy, and although the pics look great, the trade-off is a squashy table. And the pics cover up the right-most column by a bit, so I can't see the footnote.
  • Columns tidied now.--DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• The obvious addition would be a map; surely there's a free-use one? Keep if all my colleagues' issues are addressed. Tony (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I intend to address the remaining issues over the next couple of days. The images issues is one that seems to affect some users but not others and doesn't seem to be attributable to a particular browser or screen size. I agree some of the columns look a bit messy and will be going through these to add breaks to try and get a regular presentation of the dates and lines. With regards to the map, there was one in the article before but it was removed - I think because of copyright issues but I will check. --DavidCane (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Although a minor point, the number of lines and stations needs to be updated. Maybe there should be a mention of the number of DLR stations separately.
  • The number of lines and stations is correctly stated as 11 and 270 respectively in the lead. The number of DLR stations is listed in the lead - 40. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• There is an image of the map of the Underground but it is very out of date and so obviously needs to be updated. Changes to be made are the stations around Shepherd's Bush\White City and the DLR extensions and additions. Maybe there should be a note on the zonal changes, especially as some stations may have been moved into another zone. Simply south (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist. I don't feel all my points have been adequately addressed. More serious things like the Clive's Underground unreliable source concerns me. There are also many other points that need addressing. For example, the sortability of dates doesn't work properly—it sorts as text not dates. Put simply, if this was a current FLC it would fail. Due to the multiple issues I think this list would benefit from the added scrutiny of another FLC if it were to be substantially improved, rather than seeing this currently sub-standard list scrape through a review. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sortability now fixed. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Unfortunately the timing of this review was not the best as it coincided with a FAC on an article I wrote. Rather than mutilate the current page, I have been working on upgrades in a sandbox, so that as many of the suggestions can be implemented at once. As I said above, I believe that the majority of these issues will be addressed in the next couple of days.--DavidCane (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that addresses all the issues raised above, except the map which needs to be sourced. The update on the usage statistics remains to do. --DavidCane (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but reviewing the changes, hasn't changed my opinion. The table has been made a lot wider, which has accessibility issues. Canon Street and Kentish Town have some things in the wrong columns, I'm not sure the "Mainline opened" column is relevent for a "London Underground" list. I realise you are still working on this list, but I'm also not sure the "Other names" columns is useful for many reasons. 1) If the station has more than one other name, sorting won't help identify it. 2) It will struggle to be comprehensive in giving all alternative names any LU station once has. I would prefer to see that information integrated onto each station page and removed from here. I realise this would be an enormous task (the first station I looked at [Euston] had no mention of its proposed name [Melton Street]) but I think it would be beneficial in keeping the table to the most important information and letting the station wikilinks provide the extra information. It would also reduce some of the wrapping within the table which IMO greatly reduce its visual appeal. Please note all my criticisms are based on the featured list criteria. I have recognised the good work you're putting into this, e.g. updating usage stats etc., and hope you continue. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I've fixed the Cannon Street and Kentish Town columns. The errors were introduced as I was updating the usage stats in the last column.
      • For the reason you have noted, the other names column isn't sortable and never was intended to be. This column contains additional information to show the development of a stations name, and it is unlikely that a user is going to want to use the sort feature to search for a previous name. If they know the previous name they are almost certain to know the current name. Whilst the previous names information is already contained in many of the individual articles, I believe that this is one of the more interesting aspects of this list as it shows how much and how many times the system has changed over the years. On the matter of comprehensiveness, the Cyril Harris book "What's in the name" cited in note 4 gives the previous names and dates (along with the derivation of the name which I haven't used). The Douglas Rose map, cited in note 3, also gives the previous names but, to avoid just having one principle source I choose to use the map just as the source for the opening dates column and the transfer of operation dates. I do think it is rather odd to suggest improving a table by removing some of the information from it.
      • The mainline column is included to show earlier dates that a station was in operation with a railway company that does not form part of London Underground. For instance, the Central line stations on the Leyton to Epping branch were opened some 80 to 90 years earlier than the first service from the tube. I think that it is important for readers to be able to see that many of the stations are far older than their London Underground usage. To deal with the width issue, the column could be removed and its contents incorporated into the notes column, in the same way that the lines transfer information is handled.
      • On the issue of accessibility, the main problem appears to be the width of the screen that the table is displayed on. I have reduced the text size in the table and temporarily removed the images to make the table occupy the full width. Does that help?--DavidCane (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to revisit, however my opinion has not been changed. At the moment I see this as failing 5. Visual appeal. The table width's are still a problem (5a), and we now have no images (5b), is it not possible to have a PD tube map? I realise you are trying hard, and I commend your efforts but for me it is not there yet. The table width's are just about okay with the smaller text on my widescreen laptop, however when I viewed them on a desktop (when I was meant to be working) there were some serious text wrapping issues. I think having 3 separate date columns definitely contributes to this, and I wondered if they could be merged into one with some notes. Some more minor issue for me are that the note system still seems a bit strange, for example the "A." seems a bit random. Also the notes should have some ndashes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• In ascending order of simplicity of solution:
  1. The "A" is just a carry over from the previous notation system and could be anything at all. How about "*"?
     • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. ndashes – no problem.
     • Done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. pictures - I commented these out to allow the table to fill the full width of the article space. Adding them back in as they were would make the column width problem worse. I could put a few selected ones at the top, above the list. I think the alternative - to add a column for images and put one in for each station would make the article size too great as the loading time is already dragging.
  4. reducing the number of date columns - My intention is to get rid of the second and third columns and add notes into the tube opening dates to indicate those stations which were originally served by a main line company before transfer to the tube. The DLR date list could be combined with the tube list as there are only three stations which are jointly served so there is little information to be lost. I haven't got around to doing this as the chore of recoding the table was one I was saving for a day when my brain was especially sharp, but I will get on to it now.
  5. PD tube map. TfL is understandably protective of its tube map, but there is a geographic version at File:London Underground full map complete.svg which could be used.--DavidCane (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
     • Done--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More comments I don't think this is that far from a keep, but there are still niggling issues.

• Most of the lead is verified by the referenced list, but we need to cite facts such as "Its first section opened in 1863, making it the oldest underground metro system in the world." and "The system operates below ground in central London but runs on the surface in the outlying suburbs. Approximately 55 per cent of its routes are above ground".
  • I see that this has been done by Chris - thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• The general references need to be formatted properly (last accessdate, publisher, etc.)
  • Moved to external links.--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Blank table cells need em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Once the DLR and main line date columns are removed, the only blank cells will be in the other names column. Isn't it implicit that a blank here means that there is no other name so an em dash would be unnecessary?--DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - since this list has improved greatly since I last reviewed it, I think I should offer some comments.
  • The image looks ok, though I think a smaller map (sush as File:London Underground full map.svg) showing only parts of the metro system would work better here because it is a very complex system
    • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I echoed Rambo's Revenge's suggestion of merging the date columns into one with notes - that would help improves its visual appeal
    • Working on this off-line to avoid leaving a partly complete mess. It will take a day or so before this is finished. --DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The two general references need proper formatting, or alternatively move them to external links section
    • Done. --DavidCane (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

—Chris! _ct 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Whatever minor issues there are aren't enough to delist this list. Fantastic job by DavidCane and others in their improvements. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 7 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [8].

---

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders

Please note that this is not a merge discussion, a feel a consensus has already been reached and this is basically a proceedural nom. Per 3b, I feel this page could be merged with three other pages, which would increase the use. I proposed a merge of this list, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders and Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders into a Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders/archive1 ended in delist and the majority of the commenters agreed that the proposed merged article (here) was acceptable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge/redirect per nom. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per my previous comments here and here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist – The arguments I made at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders/archive1 apply to this list as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Fails 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:23, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [9].

---

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders

Please note that this is not a merge discussion, a feel a consensus has already been reached and this is basically a proceedural nom. Per 3b, I feel this page could be merged with three other pages, which would increase the use. I proposed a merge of this list, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders and Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders into a Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders/archive1 ended in delist and the majority of the commenters agreed that the proposed merged article (here) was acceptable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge/redirect per nom. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per my previous comments here and here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist – Scorpion's 3b argument basically echoes my view. I'm also not too thrilled that a WordPress page is used as a source, and there are some prose and MoS glitches; these were also problems in the passing leaders list. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Fails 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:22, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [10].

---

List of Metallica band members

Notified: WikiProject Metal and Nergaal.

I believe that this page does not meet the 3b criterion. It has 10 items, which is the unofficial limit, but the history isn't particularily complex and I don't think it's enough to warrant an entire page. The lead largely recreates material from the main Metallica page (although it should be noted that it is a FA), which does contain a smaller summary of band members. The only thing it lacks is the albums, which I think can be adapted into a table like List of Megadeth band members. Even if the page isn't delisted, it should be converted to tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: It is now in table format. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep - regardless of the number of items, this list provides significant information, as much or more than a number of the episodes lists people have referred to as examples of how short lists can meet 3b. Further, the main article made FA while this list was split, so to argue that it should be delisted and merged could theoretically result in the main article being delisted as an FA. What happens in a case where FA judges a list to be too long to exist in a main article, but FLers intepreting 3b broadly delist that list because they believe it should be merged? Isn't there a conflict between the process then? Geraldk (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that if the images were eliminated, one could easily fit the tables in the main article. You have to remember that most of the lead is already in the Metallica page, so the only new content is the tables, and it's not enough. Like I said, the only difference between this article and the section at Metallica is the tables and the "Release contributions" column. Both could easily go there and would result in a net improvement in the article. Frankly, what does/doesn't meet WP:WIAFA doesn't matter here. Our goal is to uphold the standards of the Featured List process. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there may be a conflict between what WIAFA says and what WIAFL says. That doesn't concern you? It certainly bothers me. The idea that two of the most important recognition processes in WP, two processes that drive a lot of the editing, are working at cross-purposes is a serious problem. Geraldk (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Delist per 3b, certainly can be merged with the main article - whether this delisting will affect Metallica's FA status is irrelevant to FLRC discussion - this list is not up to the FL standard and thus should be delisted.—Chris! _ct 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the main article already has that info, so this is purely a content fork.—Chris! _ct 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion's points. Tony (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Per 3b, and for the fact that the whole lead is taken from the history of Metallica via the main article. This is probably what it's going to look like if we include the release contributions and timeline into the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:07, 29 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [11].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Wolfmother

Notified: WikiProject Australian music, WikiProject Rock music and User talk:Gary King.

The list has 20 items, so a merge could easily be performed. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep twenty items is a significant list. I do believe that merging this list would unbalance the article and it is of sufficient length to meet 3b. Geraldk (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We have delisted larger lists than this. I think 20 items could easily be added there. Take Julie Kavner#Awards, there are only four less than are here and I don't think it impedes the article or unbalances it at all. Hell, the filmography is a lot bigger than this page and it also doesn't unbalance it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Fails 3b. I believe that 25 lists is about the limit. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist This one is longer than others, but still not enough nominations to be a stand-alone list. As for the "unofficial" limit for this type of lists, it should be close to 30.--Crzycheetah 02:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys continue to throw darts at the dartboard. 25? 30? 15? 50? Geraldk (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gerald, I appreciate your hard work; however, please note that the criteria evolve and the expectations and standards along with them. This is a good thing, I believe. One of my pet hates is single-item lists, and this is full of them. At the very least, some way needs to be found to merge the sections—there's horizontal space for providing another column or two that could accommodate the lead info in the sections. Otherwise, or as well, merge for a much better impact on our readers. Tony (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that the standards evolve, as they should, my concern is and continues to be that they not evolve in such a way as to make the process and the idea of featured list status unclear to editors. You have done a tremendous amount of work helping people to understand the FA criteria with very detailed expalanations, which has helped elucidate the FA process for a lot of people. But I see no amount of detailed explanation that will help editors when the WIAFL criteria allow for essentially a random subjective judgement of length as a core criterion. Geraldk (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Geraldk. I don't see where criterion 3b specifies that more than 20 items are required for awards lists. Is this a hidden criterion? It appears the minimum number of items is a subjective opinion, I believe 20 is a significant number of awards.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I concur with the view that the criteria does not specify the minimum number of items required for an awards list. If the above users feel that this is the case then they should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, where the latest resolved discussion indicates that a list should have at least 10 items. Is then another attempt at re-hashing that point. I hope not. Dan arndt (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We did discuss it at WP:WIAFL, and the consensus was 3b. 3b, while it doesn't have a hard minimum, states that a content form must have the notability or length to sustain itself as a stand alone list. This page does not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - As Dabomb87 requested, this is how it would look like if this article was merged into the main article. Note: the awards are sorted randomly, as this is just to show how big the section would look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRE.K.A.L.24 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [12].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes

Notified: WikiProject Alternative music and Gary King.

With 13 items, a merge could easily be performed. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Definitely fails 3b, even Geraldk will agree. All those one-row tables make it look worse.--Crzycheetah 02:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:21, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [13].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Soundgarden

Notified: WikiProject Alternative music and WikiProject Metal. The nominator (Be Black Hole Sun) is indef banned, so there was no point in leaving a message.

Again, although Soundgarten is a very notable band, this list has just 10 items, a merge could easily be performed. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Not only it fails 3b, it also contains inconsistent format. "Miscellaneous awards and honors"? What the...--Crzycheetah 02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:20, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 16:12, 30 June 2009 [14].

---

List of cultural references in The Cantos

Notified Filiocht, Vathek, and Wikiprojects Popular Culture and Poetry

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails 3.b, requirements for stand-alone lists to meet general article requirements of verifiability (there are no inline citations in the article) and, less pressingly, criterion 1, because it needs a thorough copyedit for punctuation standardization. Gimme danger (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way does this not meet 3b? Geraldk (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In my perhaps faulty logic, 3b requires that a featured list "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists". When I follow the link to discover what those requirements are, I immediately discover that "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability." Since this article does not have any inline citations, any claim within it cannot be verified, hence it doesn't meet general content policies, hence it doesn't meet stand alone list requirements, hence it doesn't meet 3.b.

I'm not particularly familiar with FL criteria, so I don't really know how you all would prefer to classify this case. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch. 3b is intended more to prevent content forking and the creation of stubby lists. I think the 1 stuff and lack of citation is a more fair criticism. Geraldk (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wanted to use the hip lingo, I guess, and thought that "this doesn't look like the professional, sourced material that featured content ought to look like" wouldn't sound too good. And you totally caught me. Should I rewrite/resubmit this nomination? --Gimme danger (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all, because the concerns are valid. Geraldk (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Statements such as "The most striking feature of the text, to a casual browser, is the inclusion of Chinese characters as well as quotations in European languages other than English" sound like original research, while "It is a book-length work, widely considered to present formidable difficulties to the reader" needs a source. Complete lack of inline citations keep this from being featured list material. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist unless a lot of work is done on it. Better, I think, to renovate and resubmit to the rigours of FLC. Please make the hyphen/en dashes consistent as list interrupters. "etc." is not appropriate in a formal register ("such as"?). Do we need the bold face in the list? It gives a messy look. Citations missing (e.g. Pound's ABC of Reading? Page number?). Good luck. Tony (talk) 08:22, 28 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [15].

---

List of universities in Canada

Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Education in Canada and WikiProject Universities.

This was previous split and forked. The component lists we all delisted and merged by Reywas92 and Rst20xx following consensus at the talk page. The information is out of date. I updated and tagged some of the British Columbia figures before lists were merged but the others haven't been updated (or tagged). There are also now 5a (visual appeal) issues, because maps from old sublist leads have been put next to tables text is shifted down (ideally they would be smaller, not sure if this is possible). For example between the "Newfoundland and Labrador" and "Nova Scotia" sections the map is pushed to the left of the preceeding image, and the text is further squashed to the left of the map. (this actually doesn't happen on smaller monitors) Also at the Prairies FLRC concerns were raised over the reliability of AUCC. From the Alberta section "There are four universities in Alberta, fourteen public colleges (two of which grant degrees), and seven private colleges (all of which grant degres). Most private colleges refer to themselves as "university colleges", but are not legally universities, although they grant equivalent degrees." – if that is the case is there any reason to have seperate lists for unis and colleges? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I originally forgot to transclude this at FLRC. Nomination now complete. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this list looks pretty good to me. If the map is causing problem visually, then they should be removed. The out of date info is the biggest problem, but if a dedicate editor can fix them, then problem solved.—Chris! _ct 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep- This list needs work, but overall, it is unique in that is doesn't follow the bland look of other lists. Maybe the list can be combined, and the maps and images can go to the bottom of the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Manitoba universities doesn't have their languages listed, is there a reason for this? Also, there are inconsistancies between Location A, Location B, and Location C (vs Location A & Location B & Location C, and even other styles), this should be fixed. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not happy—"Local" confuses with local government, where "provincial" is intended. (Second sentence)
• "As a result of this constitutional agreement"—who said it was an agreement? Not imposed by Westminster ... BTW, the British NAA was enacted by Westminster, wasn't it? Needs to be said.
• "provincial-level".
• "learners" --> "students".
• Redundant "also".
• A whole column wasted on E, E, E, E. Since there are only one or two that aren't E, why not asterisk them alone, with a key?
• Hate those one-item lists!
• 17 ... 17.

And more. Needs a copy-edit. Can Gary et al. indicate whether they're intending to renovate this? Otherwise, it should be put out to pasture, and hopefully resubmitted. Tony (talk) 08:29, 28 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 17:17, 21 June 2009 [16].

---

List of mergers and acquisitions by Dell

Notified: WP Companies, WP Computing, Gary King

Like most FLRC nominations, this FL does not meet featured list criteria 3b. Here is what the main article will look like if this article was merged into it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b; could easily be merged into main article without compromising summary style. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree with delisting - Stand-alone list is justified. Not only is the list of mergers and acquisitions rather long, but the parent article is "too long" without this content, and adding this to the parent article would exacerbate that problem. (I have not considered whether the list article still meets quality standards, as that does not seem to be an issue in this nom.) --Orlady (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:19, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 17:17, 21 June 2009 [17].

---

List of mergers and acquisitions by Expedia

Notified: WikiProject Companies, Gary King

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the 3b criterion in the WP:WIAFL. Crzycheetah 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b; could easily be merged into the main article without compromising summary style. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge. Parent article Expedia would be substantially improved by the merger. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:19, 20 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 13:14, 16 June 2009 [18].

---

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders

Notified: TonyTheTiger, Cbl62, WikiProject College football and WikiProject Michigan

Per 3b, I feel this page could be merged with three other pages, which would increase the use. I proposed a merge of this list, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders and Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders into a Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders. The merge discussion ended in a no consensus, although the majority of the commenters agreed that the proposed merged article (here) was acceptable. There are two opposers. JKBrooks85 originally disagreed, but later decided that he liked the proposed version. Cbl62 opposed largely on length concerns and the loss of content, but I feel that the merged version's length of 45000 is very acceptable, and it cuts out the leads which were basically recreations of eachother. I'd be interested to see what his opinion of it is. TonyTheTiger's oppose is based around tables, but I think they could be cut down. Several users did state that the merged version was a net improvement, and it would also allow for other stats to be included. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I continue to be opposed because I have never seen as many tables in one list as the proposed merged list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is that a bad thing? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It just seems unusual. I don't analyze a lot of lists so I might be wrong on this. I had not noticed the navigation template, which seems to have been added at some point and is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it either way. My oppose was made prior to seeing the combined lit, and I have to admit that the navigation tool built into the combined list is pretty good. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge (so I guess that's delist?) - I think they should be merged, any list under 60k is fine and these three fit together very naturally - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just FYI (and to avoid confusion), FLRC only decides the featured status of FLs, not whether they should be merged or not post-FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist The merged version looks great to me. This list right now has insufficient information to be featured. Plus, there are many red links in here, as well.--Crzycheetah 02:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist "Too many tables" doesn't seem to be a good enough reason not to merge. In any case (if the merge goes forward or not), this fails 3b, specifically "[The list] ... could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• If I am understanding this discussion correctly, the debate is about the current FL and not the proposed joint merged list. Is this debate only about this single list or all three that were being considered for merger. I ask because if only this one is listed, I am not sure what the post-FLRC result action should be. If all three are up for delist, then I presume the question is whether the proposed merged list is eligible to be nominated. I am just not sure what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just this one. It's a test case. All three would have to be nominated seperately, so I nominated just one to see how things go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist – Could be logically merged into a larger list, so it probably fails 3b. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - for process reasons and larger questions raised by this nomination. I'm worried that there is a conflict developing between the larger groups of editors who have made editorial decisions to create separate lists on various topics and the decisions related to 3b. In this case in particular, I think the merger issue should have been resolved before this was nominated for FLRC (although I do believe that this specific merger is a good idea). But there are larger issues. Beyond the issues I've raised in the past about exactly where and when 3b applies and the slippery slope I fear we are heading down, what we are in effect confronting is a larger question of Wikipedia policy for the creation of lists. Forgive me, because I wasn't here for the discussion where 3b was created, but could someone answer these questions for me?

• Was there a debate on the applicable MOS pages with larger input from the wikipedia community regarding modification of the WIAFL criteria, since 3b is having implications now beyond the judging of lists and is in effect creating policy regarding the merging or independence of stand alone lists?
• Is the intent of 3b to apply pressure across wikipedia to merge lists into each other and into articles? If so, I think there are questions as to whether the FLC and FLRC is the proper place to create editing policy.'

Geraldk (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• This page is only to determine whether this list meets FL criteria or not. We are not saying that this has to be merged, only that it would be reasonable to do so. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that. My concern is that FLC and FLRC not be used to force editing and policy decisions on the larger community. I understand this nomination was made in good faith, but I think there's a rush to judgement about a lot of lists on FLC and FLRC without answering some pretty fundamental questions about what exactly 3b means for lists in general. 3b is still ill-defined and utterly subjective. In this case, this list is well done according to other parts of WIAFL, it's just a question of whether the topic of 'passing leaders' is enough of a separate topic from 'statistical leaders' to warrant an independent list. You are in effect saying that this list has to be merged or it does not meet Wikipedia's highest standards, which for editors who want their content to meet high standards will force the question of the merger. Meanwhile, there is no consensus in the merger discussion about whether a merged list would be too long (I can see both sides on that one). It is troubling to me that this question would be raised here after the proposal for a merger effectively failed with no consensus. Geraldk (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I know that FLRC is no substitute for a merger or afd discussion, and I did start a merger discussion before coming here. It was basically a weak no consensus (2 opposed a merge, but the rest did seem to support it) and it appeared to be going nowhere despite my attempts to restart it. This FLRC, while perhaps a tad hasty, was done because I felt there was enough support for a merge (and, indeed, one of the previous opposers has stated that he would be fine either way) and a FLRC was the next step. I do agree fully with you, however, that I do not want FLRC to go in the direction of being any kind method to force a merge, and I would be willing to withdraw this and pursue a merge discussion, if you wish. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, process question. If an existing FL is to be merged, do we have guidelines that say whether it should be de-listed before the merger, or if the merger decision should be made before it is delisted? Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it could be either/or really. If it's a non-controversial merger, then it could be delisted first, then a discussion could be held. However, in most cases, a merge discussion should be held first. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, not trying to be a jerk here, but it would seem to make sense to me that there should be consensus on the merger first before this. Aside from tge process concern, given the current ambiguity in 3b, while I understand the argument that this could be merged, I don't necessarily that could = should = delisting. This is not a list of five awards received by a band. It's a significantly large list of statistics. It's not, I think, a clear-cut case. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the 3b issue, I notice Cr. 1 niggles: "single–game, single–season" (should be hyphens) ... "The Michigan football program has won more conference championships than any football program in any football conference." is filled with redundancy, why not "Michigan has won more football conference championships than any other program." ... Repetitive and awkward wording at the end of the first paragraph about rivalries ... I see linked dates in the references; not sure why we need them like that ... newspapers should be italicized (The Daily Orange) ... This image caption is unclear: "Chad Henne is Lloyd Carr's last starting quarterback." Last, or most recent? I'm inclined to go with the latter. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delist. A few minutes ago I supported the merge and was oblivious to the FLRC. Looking at this list now, I don't think trophiesandawards.wordpress.com is a reliable source. Also considering the three lists together the second and third paragraphs are all recreations of each other. I see this as a kind of WP:CFORK, and think all three should be delisted, then merged then have a fresh FLC for the new list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:44, 9 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 13:14, 16 June 2009 [19].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters

Notified: Another Believer

It should be noted that this page was promoted in March, but I think enough time has passed (and the new criteria was passed since then). With 18 items, and a not particularly long Scissor Sisters page, a merge is possible. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Keep: While I wish for the page to remain as is, being the author, I can respect the decision to remove the featured status if the list is not long enough (though I am still not sure how many awards or nominations are required for a standalone list). However, I do ask that this page NOT be merged or deleted, as it is a quality article and the list is bound to grow. Thank you for your consideration. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just a discussion about whether it should retain its featured list status. Delisting does not mean that it has to be merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification. I was thrown off when "a merge is possible" was mentioned above. Please just keep in mind that this page presents much more information than there would be if this was simply a table of nominations and awards on the main Scissor Sisters article. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b, although I am not by any means suggesting a merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just for future reference, is there a specific number of awards or nominations one must receive to have a standalone list? I never saw if a number was established or not. This might not be the best place to discuss this, but figure one of you might know. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no hard limit, meaning that we usually determine that on an individual case basis. The rule of thumb is that if you can merge the list into the main article without compromising the article's use of summary style, it probably doesn't meet 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per 3B.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 11:53, 6 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 13:14, 16 June 2009 [20].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts

Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Rock music.

This is a less obvious one because there are 24 items, but the Sam Roberts page is not particularily long, so a merge would be achievable. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist I even question the completeness of this list. Sam Roberts was nominated in only 2 awards? If it's true, it can easily be mentioned in the main article.--Crzycheetah 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b. The fact that there are only two tables should make it easier to merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge. Reywas92^Talk 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per above.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 11:52, 6 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 13:14, 16 June 2009 [21].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Rage Against the Machine

Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Metal.

Rage Against the Machine is a very notable band, but notability is not inherited. With 10 items (the bare minimum), a merge is a realistic possibility. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per nomination. Lists like this epitomize the phrase "content fork". NSR77 ^T 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Two small tables only?--Crzycheetah 03:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b. I think that going forward, we need to focus less on hard limits on listed items required for lists to be stand-alone, and more on whether those lists could reasonably be included in the main (or related) article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist: Ten awards with two wins could easily be merged back to the main article. Note, the nomination is simply for delisting, not for delisting and merging - the merging would need to be done as a separate process which WP:FL isn't involved in (although individual editors may be). --JD554 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 11:52, 6 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 13:14, 16 June 2009 [22].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry

Notified: Gary King, no wikiprojects (article is not part of any).

With 16 items, a merge is a realistic possibility. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist I believe Katy has enough time to receive enough awards for this page to be featured. Right now, with all those one-row tables, I even question whether this list passes 5a.--Crzycheetah 03:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist per 3B.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 11:51, 6 June 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 Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by The Rambling Man 16:28, 2 June 2009 [23].

---

List of surviving veterans of World War I

Archive 1

Notified: RichyBoy, WikiProject World's Oldest People, WikiProject Biography/Military and WikiProject Military history/World War I task force.

It's unfortunate, because I really like the formatting of the list, but it is slowly self-deleting itself (in my mind, it fails criterion 6 - stability) and has now fallen below ten items. I wish there was some way we could keep the content, such as by adapting List of last surviving World War I veterans by country or creating a "List of last surviving veterans of World War I". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The subject of the list is what causing the problem. Since any survivor of the war will eventually died, the list will eventually be have zero item. I think Scorpion0422's suggestion might work.—Chris! _ct 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist per Scorpion0422's and my reason above—Chris! _ct 22:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But would the choice of how many not be arbitary? The last 10, 25, 100? If there is nothing to highlight the last ten compared to the 11th, i don't think such a list would be featurable.

Anyway, agree that the current list is not sustainable, being too short, and likely to shrink to nothing very soon, so an unfortunate delist.YobMod 13:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested in the previous FLRC, the cutoff could be 2004, which would be 90 years after the start of the war. This would result in a pretty good sized list of about 300 entries. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too agree that the present list is unsustainable and will eventually cease to exist at its current rate. However, I do favour your suggestion, Scorpion0422; the 2004 cutoff could potentially present a favourable list with a substantial amount of entries and works well time wise. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its fair to say that a list which covers a changing topic fails criterion 6 because its content changes, particularly has it has to change to stay in line with criterion 3 and criterion 6 is really about edit wars and the like. I think that this list still meets the criteria, and the fact that it's shrinking and will eventually self-delete is (sadly) natural and an advantage of Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Still would be delisted as it's passed the unofficial ten item limit and will only decrease in size. Whether the editors of the list wish to incorporate the 90-year cutoff as Scorpion suggested is another matter, but as it stands, this isn't getting any bigger. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this is a pity. But I guess the 10-item rule rules. I'd love it to be restructured, merged into another, whatever. But I agree with Scorpion as it stands. Is it worth going back to WikiProject MilHist and asking for more input? Tony (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• What is the current state-of-play for this article? Everyone seems to like Scorpion's idea of making it a List of the last surviving World War I veterans (or some other title), but has anyone actually made an attempt to do this, or will it be archived because no one can be bothered? It shouldn't be difficult to do; move the page, check the history, and re-add the names of those who have been removed since 2004. An additional column for Date of Death may be worth adding. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delist Fails 3b (Not 6 though; how frequently does the subject matter change?). Doesn't even meet the unofficial pre-3b 10-item limit. A shame too, because the referencing and lead of this one is really quite good. I do hope that someone takes the initiative to merge / shift material to a better article, but that's not the concern of FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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