Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 2018
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it violates the Wikipedia:Article titles policy and also WP:NPOV. An article called "List of cities in Israel" which lists cities outside of Israel is not adhering to the neutral point of view policy. The article's promotion in 2008 was controversial and it took three attempts before it finally was being promoted. The neutrality issues that were raised back then have not been fixed, so it should be demoted. ImTheIP (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - blatant NPOV violation, factually misleading title. nableezy - 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - outrageous that this is "featured list", Huldra (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is strikes me that (per the article's talkpage) it's just the title that's the problem here. The list is introduced with a precise definition of the inclusion criteria, to whit: This list includes cities that are in Israel and Israeli settlements with city status in the West Bank, an area internationally recognized as Palestinian territory held under military occupation, so unless I'm missing something, this is an RM issue, not a FL issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree; from reading through the talk page, it appears that about once a month for the past 5 months someone has proposed moving the list to a more verbose/accurate title, or removing the cities that are within the Palestine Territories, but no consensus has been reached. This nomination appears to just be a continuation of that campaign, but FLRC is not a duplicate venue for handling article/list naming discussions when you're not getting the result you want. --PresN 20:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the point of this page precisely to handle content issues that cannot be resolved!? Because if it could, wouldn't the industrious Wikipedian just fix the page rather than instigate a referendum for its demotion? ImTheIP (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of this page is to determine whether a list meets the FL requirements still. So no, it's not to "handle content issues that cannot be resolved", and in any case, there is no such thing. Articles can be moved if consensus agrees the title is incorrect. This (FLRC) process is not a way to circumvent a failed requested move I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I believe the article breaches the WP:NDESC policy and fails a WP:FL? requirement and thus should not have FL status. I don't think I'm circumventing any process. ImTheIP (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which FL? requirement was that again? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed on the linked to page "... in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, ...)" ImTheIP (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but it does, doesn't it? It seems that just because community consensus is against your preferred name, you have declared this list to be contrary to policy. Which it clearly is not. So this is a bad faith nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed on the linked to page "... in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, ...)" ImTheIP (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which FL? requirement was that again? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I believe the article breaches the WP:NDESC policy and fails a WP:FL? requirement and thus should not have FL status. I don't think I'm circumventing any process. ImTheIP (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of this page is to determine whether a list meets the FL requirements still. So no, it's not to "handle content issues that cannot be resolved", and in any case, there is no such thing. Articles can be moved if consensus agrees the title is incorrect. This (FLRC) process is not a way to circumvent a failed requested move I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and if consensus exists that the current name is satisfactory, nothing more to discuss. Please note WP:RM is not part of FLC or FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per PresN, this FLRC is just part of a move by certain editors to go around a failed consensus for an article move. I think in terms of NPOV, the article is as clear as humanly possible about the status of some of the cities—and there are no other complaints about the list from the nominator. If other complaints are brought up, as one of the main contributors to the list, I'll gladly address them to the best of my ability. The NPOV issue has been discussed ad nauseam, and there was no consensus for an article move (compromises were rejected as well). —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it appears unlikely that a sudden consensus to delist is going to appear, so I'm going to go ahead an close this nomination. If you really feel that the article's title violates the naming guidelines and that the consensus from prior RfCs are wrong... well, I don't know what you can do; you need to find a wider audience to discuss or a better proposed name, but as long as there's no consensus that the current name is against guidelines then this isn't a matter for FLRC. --PresN 17:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.
- 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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Notified: Iridescent, WikiProject Public Art/London.
- Also pinging BD2412, Dreamy Jazz, EEng, Gonnym, HughJLF and Lord Belbury, all of whom were involved in the move discussion. Ham II (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article had its featured list star removed by Bradv following this discussion to move it from the title List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice, but it was never submitted to FLRC. Ham II (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know why a simple page move would result in a page losing the status it resceived following a community discussion and concomitant consensus; it seems rather out of process to say the least. After all: There's nothing here to fail the featured list criteria, and it's not—as—if—it's—a—requirement—to—contain—the—word—List—anywhere—in—the—title, is it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A page move is not a valid reason to delist a featured list... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know much about lists, but the logic expressed by Tony Baloney and Chanel No. 9 seems right to me. Meanwhile, for some tragic relief see User:EEng#Museum_of_Forerunners_to_"Just_Say_No_to_Drugs". EEng 3:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)
- @TonyBallioni: I see it is in response to User:Gonnym comment at the move discussion, "
if this stops being a list, be sure to remove the featured list tag. I doubt the current state of the article would get a FA as the lead section has information (basically all of it) that is not present in the article violating MOS:LEAD (which the list might in-fact also be doing, but I'm unsure how FL assessment works
And where it also seems they are equally unsure about how FL-demotion occurs. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears so. I've gone ahead and restored the bronze star thingy since there was no consensus to delist. Of course, if for some reason there's consensus to delist here, it can be done then. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyBallioni: I see it is in response to User:Gonnym comment at the move discussion, "
- The featured status should be reinstated / not removed from this page, as there is no reason why is fails the criteria. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rmove - First of all, I didn't start this removal process, if I had done so, I would actually come with the backup for why it should be removed. But since it already started, and you're all fast to save this undeserving article, then let's start. First yes, the change in the article makes the scope of the article not a list. It talks about the monument itself. The list in it, is just a sub-section of the article. A lot of regular articles have lists sub-sections. So with that, it fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #1 - the lead does not define the scope of the inclusion criteria. In addition, it fails #5 as it violates MOS:LEAD, the table violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY, the images in the table have a copy/paste alt text - not even trying, the reference section violates MOS:HEAD. It fails #3 as the the only section is "Tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice". Where is the history of the monument, the development, controversies, public reaction? Some of the notes aren't even sources which violate WP:V. This is without even trying to find what is wrong with this article. I'm not sure how you all just look at this and find it all ok. --Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A few points of order, speaking as an FL delegate:
- Renaming/moving an FL is not grounds to automatically delist
- FLs should not be delisted in any case without an FLRC discussion, especially if the article continues to exist (e.g. is not a redirect)
- At first glance, this article is still mostly composed of a table, with some explanatory text above, and so would generally be considered a "list"
All that said, Gonnym has mentioned several issues with the list that would/could lead to it being delisted. I'm not going to weigh in on the list's merits right now, but nominating oddities aside in my opinion this is a perfectly valid FLRC and should continue as such- if consensus is that Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice is not FL quality, it will be delisted, otherwise it will not. --PresN 21:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some of the "issues" mentioned above aren't really issues at all, and it strikes me that this is one of those occasions that it would have been much easier and more profitable for all concerns for those trivial items to be addressed by modifying the article rather this rather unnecessary course of action. A few comments: (a) it doesn't need to say "list" for it to be a list article, that's nonsense, we have literally thousands of featured lists which don't have "list" in the title. There's no clear indication as to what the "inclusion criteria" needs to be here now the article is the main article about the memorial, but if one wanted to add a single sentence to cover that the list section includes all the tablets, that'd be just fine. The alt text is just fine so there's no access concerns at all. If anyone wishes to expand the article to cover more of the items noted above, feel free to do so. Note [a] could use a ref but all other notes are just fine. So, please, let's all just relax a bit and work on identifying fixes here. And as for "This is without even trying to find what is wrong with this article", see WP:NOTPERFECT and WP:POINT. This article had a community consensus to promote to FL, and as far as I can see, not much has changed since then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is very little wrong with this article and some of the issues mentioned above have been fixed. I would delete the discontinued mobile app in the lead and external links. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PresN, Giants2008, this one is done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be a consensus to delist, so closing as kept. --PresN 02:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.