Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2018
Keep
edit- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because this page doesn't exist anymore. --Cheetah (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nom, administrative removal after merge. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: TonyTheTiger, WikiProject Business
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails multiple FL criteria points. The lead is too short and not engaging at all. Comprehensiveness is in question because there are rankings from 2011 and we are in 2018. Also there are schools listed here with no rankings next to them. A picture or two would be a nice addition. Cheetah (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Tags for 7 and 5 years and out of date. The abbrevations in the table header should either reference a formal legend or use the {{Abbr}} template. The ranking techniques section is too long. Prose could really use a copyedit to tighten up and streamline some paragraphs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist also the table sort is broken, and could be better designed in general. Text needs to be rewritten in some parts "The ranking of business schools has been discussed in articles".... Mattximus (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per the six-year-old tag and other technical concerns above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 15:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Notified: WikiProject Public Art/London
This list has now been split up into 20 sub-lists, as it had exceeded the limit for the number of templates transcluded. Ham II (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: I support User:Ham II and their work, and appreciate having the sublists. ---Another Believer (Talk) 07:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I preferred them all together, but as of now this is more of a procedural delist. Mattximus (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Mattximus. I not sure why the need to destroy the overall list into tiny parts, but it's happened (and it's outside the scope of FLC) so clearly the remnants cannot be considered amongst Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. This is not currently a list, but a directory of lists. It blatantly fails WP:FLCR 3(a) by not comprehensively covering the defined scope. TompaDompa (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per nomination. Purely administrative delist, and I second the concerns above about why this list needed to be split up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --PresN 15:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Notified: Sceptre, Doctor Who WikiProject, Television WikiProject
This probably falls into the category of a procedural nomination. Some time ago the Doctor Who serials list was split in two, and both articles currently have the FL star. I brought this up on FLC talk a while back. That discussion produced a general consensus that only the list with the 1963–1989 serials should remain an FL (pending a recommended review), and that this list should have its star removed since it is more likely to have unreferenced additions and other issues than the one with the older serials. However, WP:FL only includes this list, not the 1963–1989 one, which is the opposite of what the FLC talk page discussion recommended. My opinion is that this list doesn't meet the criteria anywway, as the lead doesn't appear to have much to do with the modern series, among other issues. I'll create a nomination for the community to review, but I recommend a speedy delist here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist As the splitter of the article to the 1963–1989 and 2005–present articles, I support the removal of the FL status. When the article was a FL, it was a completely separate list of episodes from the season articles anyways, not transcluded from those articles. I believe that it could be renominated, but as for now, it doesn't conform to the guidelines. -- AlexTW 03:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Agree with assessment above, also contains outdated language such as "The following table..." etc. Mattximus (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - hate to sound dumb, but if it can be fixed and then renominated, why not fix now? then you don't have to delist it in the first place. This is what bothers me about wiki. People see something wrong with an article, and the first thought is "let's do some 'procedural nomination'" rather than "let's fix it" 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:559E:E7AC:647D:719C (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The procedural delist nomination isn't about not wanting to do work on an article that needs work; if you read the linked discussion it's that when the original list was promoted it included almost none of the seasons that are in this list, so when it got split into 2 it was decided that the star stayed only with the pre-2005 list, while this one would need a new FLC. --PresN 15:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional - There I've made a start by removing two paragraphs from the intro that only cover the 63-89 article. ore info could be trimmed of course, but I've leave discussion of exactly how much to re-explain to the article talk page. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:559E:E7AC:647D:719C (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional 2 - and guess what, someone reverted it. Another of my wiki gripes - an IP tries to help out, and it's assumed to be vandalism. Oh well, go through your "procedural nomination" then, rather than actually trying to improve wikipedia. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:559E:E7AC:647D:719C (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants2008 for a "speedy delist", this has now been languishing since late-June. I suggest PresN takes a look because I'm mildly involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" closing. --PresN 21:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.