Removing featured lists in Wikipedia This page is for the review and improvement offeatured lists that may no longer meet thefeatured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable. The FLC director,Giants2008, or his delegates,PresN andHey man im josh, determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to bekept,consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list,archived and added toFormer featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: - actionable objections have not been resolved; or
- consensus to delist has been reached; or
- insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.
Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination: - has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown inArticles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or
- contains a clearcopyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list.
Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period asfeatured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily. A botwill update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the{{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates{{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is delisted, editors should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating atFeatured list candidates. Purge the cache to refresh this page –Table of Contents –Closing instructions |
Featured content: Featured list tools: Toolbox |
Nomination procedure - Place
{{subst:FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. - From the FLRC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post tothe FLRC talk page for assistance.
- Below the preloaded title, write your reason for nominating the list, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Please note which of thefeatured list criteria that the list fails to meet.
- Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.
- Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRCMessage|ArticleName|archive=# of archive page}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|archive=1}}) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable througharticle stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured List status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLRC indicating whom you have notified and that notifications have been completed.
|
Nominations for removal
[edit]Ancillary TV season block nominations |
|---|
The following nominations do not require comments, but are included for bookkeeping purposes. The discussion of each TV season list takes place at the respective "season 1" nomination below. |
- Notified:Aoba47,WikiProject Television
Recently these featured lists on seasons have been delisted, seethe recent FLRC log. This was because of aconsensus at the FLC talk page. This was also brought toMOS:TV's talk page (I am not able to find a link to that). Both these discussions stated that season lists should not be lists if they are properly developed. If they are not properly developed, then they can not be featured. I am nominating this to speed up the process, and I recommend to voters in this FLRC that you also nominate some lists of seasons.User:Easternsaharareview this01:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
Most of the season lists have been delisted per the consensus. I am nominating this to speed up the process, and I encourage those who are participating in the nomination to also nominate one by going toWP:FL and picking a season list of their choice.User:Easternsaharareview this01:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Solar System task force
Per the determination atWikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Moons of Neptune/archive1 that these articles about moons do not qualify as lists. It is a decent article, but should go through GA or FA instead.Bgsu98(Talk)14:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a larger discussion with more visibility to Wikiproject Astronomy, perhaps a request for consensus may be warranted. However, I have consulted people on the discord, and they don't seem to regard these types of articles as lists, which is understandable. In terms of content, there is only so much that a page can include without becoming an article. So, I woulddelist as the list isn't the main focus of this page. Also, I don't think it would be warranted to split the actual list of moons out, perWP:NOPAGE.User:Easternsaharareview this01:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Solar System task force
Per the determination atWikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Moons of Neptune/archive1 that these articles about moons do not qualify as lists. It is a decent article, but should go through GA or FA instead.Bgsu98(Talk)14:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per mymy commentUser:Easternsaharareview this01:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:User talk:Tone,User talk:Easternsahara,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Heritage Sites
The article is currently in a very disorganized state, with serious mismatches between the table headers and their corresponding content. In the first half of the list, the "Year listed" and "UNESCO data" columns appear to have been swapped, while in the latter part, the "Year listed" column instead displays locations. This seems to be an error caused by an incomplete update to the table format.
In the Tentative list section, only the names of the sites are provided. While that might have been acceptable when the list was promoted in 2010, current standards—following the examples of newer FLs such asList of World Heritage Sites in Italy—require this section to be presented in a proper table with additional details and descriptions.
Therefore, I believe the article no longer meets the criteria for a FL due to its insufficient content and structural issues, and its delisting should be considered.Nebulatria (talk)20:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I'll see if I can get some time to work on this list the following weekend.User:Easternsaharareview andthis23:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I started working on this list a while ago to bring it up with the recent FL standards, since it was promoted before I started working on these lists systematically (as well as Madagascar, Cuba, Peru, and maybe some other). It definitely need work, which will be done eventually, it is just a question whether it is better to delist and renominate when fixed or wait until it is fixed. I may assist but cannot commit to fix it fully. --Tone13:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:EF5,Easternsahara,ActuallyElite,WikiProject Weather
I've nominated this list because I don't believe it was properly scrutinized during the review process and simply is not up to FL levels as of right now. SeeTalk:List of Iowa tornadoes for more specifics, but what's on the table as I type this are a large table cited to a user-generated source (or one that can't be provednot to be UGC, anyway), a significant lack of comprehension listing of data thatdoes exist in reliable sources and can be put together in an afternoon, arbitrary inclusion candidates, and general weird formatting throughout, especially in image placement and citations in the lede, the sort I wouldn't expect from featured content.Departure– (talk)23:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify a few points:
- By "arbitrary", I mean the line in the sand being "intense tornadoes" being the only ones included and all others being completely discarded.No reason for this is given in the article itself.
- Typically, lists that include large amounts of tornadoes draw the line at "intense tornadoes" (F3/equivalent), such asTornadoes in Oklahoma, but again, no reason given. The only actual line I could think of a justification for would be "significant tornadoes" (F2/equivalent), as those are what expert of tornado record-keepingThomas P. Grazulis uses in hisSignificant tornadoes line of books.
- In addition, this list is missing numerous tornadoes within the "intense" range.
- Details about my UGC concern are further detailed atTalk:List of Iowa tornadoes#Tornado Paths source, but the short version is that a source cited in a table is listed as published byArcGIS with no credits. ArcGIS is a software at the end of the day, and while it likely was produced by a reliable source (NWS or NOAA), there's no evidence beyond anecdotal comments about the scale of the source.
- In addition, the source is almost certainly a tertiary source to be avoided in favor of a more focused source.
- There is some weird formatting right outside the lede. The lede itself also doesn't followMOS:LEDE, with information in the opening not present in the body (though, with a citation).
- Sourcing in general has been brought up on the talk page as being far from featured-level. One was revealed to likely be a blog.
- More details than I can provide quickly here can be found on the article's talk page at the anchorTalk:List of Iowa tornadoes#What in the heck?.Departure– (talk)23:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One more note:List of Iowa tornadoes is currently scheduled to appear asToday's featured list starting October 6.Departure– (talk)23:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my talk page comments. As much as I hate to delist an article as recent as this, it simply isn’t up to par.EF501:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - I have been adding tornadoes over the past week from theThomas P. Grazulis source, I am still working on completing the list. I changed the intense tornadoes meaning and put it as F3+ rated tornadoes. I removed both non reliable sources that were mentioned and replaced them with reliable ones. I do still have some work to do with adding tornadoes in the tables, but it is in the right direction.ActuallyElite (talk)17:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait ActuallyElite is actively working to address these problems so I think we should give them a chance to work on it. I admit I was somewhat careless with the source review but it had improved much since this nomination was started. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩06:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bgsu98 (10/10/25)
[edit]I don't care much for some of the comments I've read surrounding this list. "How in God's name...?" Save it. I was one of the reviewers on this FLC and spent a lot of time assistingUser:ActuallyElite with the style and prose, because the original text was pretty rough. I believe the quality was greatly improved. I did not do a source check. Anyone is welcome to challenge the accuracy or appropriateness of sources. Maybe dialing back the histrionics and offering reasonable suggestions for improving the article would be a positive step?Bgsu98(Talk)14:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:Jason Rees,WikiProject Weather
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there's several typhoons that are left unsourced, especially the 2020s typhoons. According toWikipedia:Featured list criteria, it seems like it fails at Number 3, part b; "Statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." Unless the issue gets fixed, these unsourced claims are seriously hurting the FA status of this article.Hoguert (talk)00:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hoguert: Quick note, you tagged Jason Rees and WikiProject Weather as having been notified, but I don't see that you actually did notify them; please do to increase the chance that this list gets fixed. --PresN12:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of this FLC having seen it on my watchlist and will see what I can do in the coming days to bring it up to scratch.Jason Rees (talk)16:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have done a lot of weeding on theList of retired Philippine typhoon names and this list today and am pleased to report that the death/damage totals from the 2020s are all sourced/referenced, while all retired names and intensity information is sourced. On the overall list in particular, the damage totals will need further work to incorporate death/damage totals from outside of the Philippines, but that's a job for another night.Jason Rees (talk)02:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I will withdraw from thisafter the issues are addressed, and so far, you're doing a good job fixing the problems.Hoguert (talk)00:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - Over the last week or so, I have done more and more weeding on the Philippine list and now have all the Philippine death/damage totals from Reming (Durian) in 2006 sourced back to the NCDC. Some of these death/damage totals have already been incorporated into the overall article, while I plan on getting them into the main overall article over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk)10:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nameAmuyao was meant to replaceMalakas, but because PAGASA selected the name to replaceAghon, which was stricken off the naming list of 2024 as a local name, the name was then replaced byAmuyag." Still unsourced. Roy, Mireille, Rananim, Xangsane, Durian are unsourced. There are typhoons in the 1990s, 2000s, and Linfa in 2020 that don't have damage/death toll estimatesHoguert (talk)11:00, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoguert: Patience is a virtue since as a part of the FLC, I am trying to ensure that all death/damage totals presented are sourced, accurate and do not include economic losses.Jason Rees (talk)11:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I currently feel like I have brought the majority of the death/damage totals to a point where they are sourced, verifiable and more or less correct. Over the next few days, I will be going over the naming history to ensure it is correct.Jason Rees (talk)12:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I was about to pull back from my FLC until I realize there's some duplication source issues with the article, specific sources 4, 78 and 59, 60GrenadinesDes (talk)02:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @GrenadinesDes: I have fixed the duplication issue with 69 and 60, 4 and 78 were already fixed, could you withdraw this now?User:Easternsaharareview this01:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Easternsahara @Jason Rees There's still some areas of unsourced, including "At the 46th session of the Typhoon Committee, it was noted the nameVicente appears on both the tropical cyclone name lists for the Western North Pacific and Eastern North Pacific. In response to this duplication the nameLan was chosen as replacement forVicente on the Western North Pacific name list to avoid potential confusion." paragraph and Roy's section in pre 2000s. Once those are addressed ill withdrawGrenadinesDes (talk)05:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Over the last few weeks, when time has allowed, I have been doing some research through various newspaper archives to try and tell the story of typhoon naming over the WPAC better. As a result, it has emerged that the names Hazen and Pamela were also retired, but it seems to have been lost to history.Jason Rees (talk)13:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
