Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/The Flashman Papers/archive1

Add links
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 Giants2008 23:25, 26 May 2013‎ [1].

The Flashman Papers

[edit]

The Flashman Papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Talk:The Flashman Papers

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is an overview article of a book series, and not actually a WP:List article. As such, leaving it as a "featured list" is hindering its improvement and further expansion to a full article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep the list was promoted at FLC only two months ago (following an in-depth peer review). Seems that the nominator is determined to de-stabilise the list such that it will not be able to be featured on the main page on Monday. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:Assume good faith. I'm trying to suggest improvements to the article, but an editor is blocking any suggestions due to its "featured list" status. In this case, the featured list status (and it's not a list) is hindering improvements to Wikipedia, and thus against the ethos of the project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have, but you have variously tagged the list, asked for info to be merged into it, modified MOS on book series titles in the meantime and now you want to delist this, despite it being promoted only two months ago and despite having a peer review only three months ago. We will now have to remove this from the main page listing. Now then, please provide detailed evidence of the featured list criteria that this fails please, otherwise I'll snow close this. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria it does not meet is being a list. Aside from that, as I keep pointing out, there are issues to be addressed with the article, and improvements that could be made, if certain editors do not keep playing the "this is a featured list, you cannot change it" card. As you are an involved party, would suggest that you do not snow close the list, but leave for further discussion or closure by an uninvolved party. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list. That's what the peer review and the FLC agreed. Oh, and I'm an FL director, so it would simply be procedural to remove a bad faith FLRC when the nominator hasn't substantiated which criteria the list which was promoted by community consensus two months ago now suddenly fails. Good luck in your crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, as per the above. This is obviously a list, and it's rather puzzling why this action has been taken. I am struggling to retain my GF here, but why was this question only raised after I reverted some of your edits? A stack of very good people - better editors and Wikipedians than me by far - took the time to comment at PR and FAC and not one of them even raised the question of whether this was anything but a list. A similar recent review for the front page saw absolutely no-one questioning it. As I'm struggling to see how this review is merited, could you possibly outline your argument clearly, rather than just the general WP:IDONTLIKEIT comment that opened this review? - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was your suggestion I took it here when I made a merge suggestion for suitable material from a fictional biography article to a series overview article that you didn't like. Your insistence that the article was a list article seemed to be your justification. I'll happily withdraw the nomination if you can stop taking ownership of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think now we're here, it would be nice for the community to get the chance to reaffirm that this is a list, that it doesn't need to be overhauled, have the lead trimmed to nothing, have other material merged into it. Let's see how it goes! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really have had quite enough of your tone and your assumptions of bad faith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just said this is a good opportunity for the community to check this out again! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ownership here at all and your accusations of such are in poor spirit. Your edits have not improved the article, which is why they were reverted. When I mentioned FLR, you commented that you had already taken that step, so it's a little disingenuous to try and put the blame on me your your posting of the review. I commented on the talk page about the in-universe fluff to be introduced: it's wrong to fluff up the article relating to the publication history with material that could be in a stand-alone article of its own. Perhaps your energies may be better applied building a new article, rather than destroying the good ones we have? I'm afraid you've brought the bad faith accusations onto yourself with the review, which appears churlish at the very least. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake, I assumed by "FLR" you meant Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates, rather than WP:FLRC, not knowing this existed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as per Rambling Man. The article is a truly excellent list which is being ruined by one (drive-by) editors opinion that it fails on incorrect naming and merging. Nothing should be merged, nothing should be re-named and everything should be left as it is. This is a FL for a reason, and it sat a very lengthy a thorough review (which I was part of). I saw no problems then, and I see no problems now. However, I see problems in the future if Mr Sinden gets his way. --CassiantoTalk 15:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a little disingenuous to say that no one brought this up in the FLC. Ferma said "there is quite a lot of prose in this "list", and the table format of the publication sequence does not seem to add very much ... The table could be easily turned into continuous prose, with one paragraph per book ... I am struggling to find a comparable featured article". Both Ferma and Rob have a strong point that there is a limited amount of 'list', a lot of prose, and a relatively easy way of converting the 'list' to prose here. To me, that [could violate] criterion 3b. Dismissing legitimate concerns, despite a relatively poor way of pushing them, is what's perpetuating the drama here. Let's debate this idea on its merits. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well. It would be lovely if folks like you and Robsinden actually contributed to the FLC process and the PR process with regard to this kind of candidate, because it's somewhat embarrassing for Wikipedia that we now have a list which was peer reviewed and FLC-reviewed within the last three months, resulting in a featured list, just to now be debating how it doesn't meet our criteria. If the FLC process is going to be undermined so swiftly then I suggest we need to rethink what FLC is all about, perhaps via RFC, and if that's the case, I wish the project the best of luck and will hand over to someone else because clearly my judgement is no longer adequate for FLs. (That's not supposed to be some kind of threat or ultimatum, it's just the honest truth, I'll ditch all this tomorrow if we start FLRC'ing items that we promoted two months ago, simple. It means something's clearly wrong with the process.) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I have many other commitments and choose to not regularly contribute at FLC, but that doesn't bar me from giving drive-by comments. While I don't think you meant it as such, your comment comes across as blackmail—i.e. "fine, question my judgement, but if you do I'll resign and leave the process. Do you really want that?" To say that that vibe is offputting would be ... an understatement. In any case, I don't think this needs to go to an RfC. That would be a severe overreaction. Generalized criteria can be interpreted in different ways, especially in borderline cases, and that's what we have here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I already qualified my position exactly to counter your argument. I don't want this to get delisted so soon after it was listed, it shows a distinct failure of the process and one which I (and others) oversee. If we got it so wrong, it's time for new ideas and new approaches from people like you and Robsinden, thus I'd happily step aside. My suggestion for RfC was simply because it appears people who have never participated in PR or FLC of lists suddenly want to reverse community consensus, and therefore it needs a wider community discussion than just this FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ed17, One person raised a question which was satisfactorily answered, and perhaps it would also have been useful if you had also copied that answer over, for the sake of completeness if nothing else:
"it is also worth noting that featured lists have moved on significantly since the days of "intro + table" which used to define what a list article was. Ordinarily, if you slapped an article which was even 50% prose and 50% list at FAC, it'd be "send it down" or optimistically "send it to FLC". When we collate a bunch of related articles together in a big list/table and summarise them, and provide a lovely, articulate lead, this is a featured list candidate. There has been debate over what a list is versus an article, but we tend to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Right now, this list is being assessed against WP:WIAFL".
The editor in question was happy with that answer and edited the page appropriately and in the spirit of the list. However, a number of seriously experienced editors also reviewed the list, including some of those who have commented here, User:Tim riley, User:Sarastro1, User:Wehwalt and User:A Thousand Doors, none of whom raised any issues relating to the list status. Would this list be better with the context removed? No. No it wouldn't. Would this be better if we trashed an FL simply so one editor can bloat it with the proposed in-universe fancruft from a different (and poor) article, simply because it doesn't belong in the source article either? No. No it wouldn't. Is this the last step in forum shopping undertaken by an editor who wanted to force his POV onto an article three days before it went onto the front page? That's a judgment call, but my feeling is that this rather ridiculous review is somewhat shabbily started, vexatious and needless. We all have better things to do in building an encyclopaedia, not trying to take the good stuff we have an downgrade it to mundane dross. I'll only add that if baseless reviews happen so quickly after the promotion of a list, then no, an RFC certainly isn't "a severe overreaction": vexatious reasons aside for starting this review, it should be opened up to a wider community discussion, rather than having to force excellent pages to jump through procedural hoops because one editor takes a rather narrow reading of the criteria. And yes, perhaps if you'd have joined in at any of the review stages to discuss the page, perhaps that may also have assisted in its development. - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my first post; I meant to say that it could violate 3b, but that came out as does violate 3b. I agree below with A Thousand Doors that there is a fine line between list and article, and this list/article is straddling it. No, Robsinden hasn't gone about all this very well, but whether this is a list or not is a legitimate question. It doesn't appear that consensus is with Rob, though. I agree that commenting earlier would have been ideal, but I didn't, so we're left with the here and now. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This is plainly a list, if words mean anything at all. The matter was briefly considered en route to promotion, as I recall, and a list it was agreed to be. Annotating a list, as has been most skilfully done here, does not turn a list into a prose article. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But should being a list prevent content being added? There is information at Harry Paget Flashman, specifically "Adaptations", possibly more, that is better suited at The Flashman Papers. SchroCat is arguing that because it is a "list", we cannot improve it and make it an article. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I came to the article willing to do some work on it, and faced this cabal. Maybe the content needs improving, but it is the logical place for it. It's hardly "in-universe fancruft", it's a section regarding film, TV, and radio adaptations. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well why not start an "overview" article? Just as we have List of James Bond novels and short stories that deal with Fleming's story collection (and doesn't touch the adaptations), we have James Bond that deals with the whole run - books (by numerous authors), films, games etc. With a number of follow-up authors also writing Flashman books (non-canon, modern day version), they could be dealt with in such an article. It seems a better idea to keep the good, without bloating it, and deal with the rest in a stand-alone article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough material for a separate article. The Flashman Papers should be the overview article for the topic. Say an Adaptations of The Flashman Papers article was created. I'm sure this would go to AfD, with the likely result of "Merge to The Flashman Papers". --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you need to look at what else is available then. This article is about GMF's books. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I supported this article becoming a FL back in March, and I believe that it still meets the criteria. That said, and although I don't know all the ins and outs of exactly what's going on here, I'd like to play devil's advocate and suggest that it's not too outlandish to think that The Flashman Papers has more of an "article-y" feel than a "listy" one. There appears to be an incredibly fine line between what makes one article a FA and a similar one a FL, and it seems that often the community simply plays it by ear on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, we decided that The Flashman Papers was better suited as a list, and that wasn't a decision that I particularly disagreed with. Also, I don't think we should necessarily consider featured content to be beyond reproach simply because of how recently it was promoted – after all, consensus can change, and quickly too. For example, a couple of years ago we excitedly promoted a photograph of Ebony Bones to FP status, then had to quickly delist again a few months later when it was revealed that the image wasn't actually of Ebony Bones at all. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest this is now closed? As ed17 has pointed out, the consensus is that this is very much a list as it stands, and that is what the review is supposed to examine. The other aspects of the matter - whether to merge in material from another source, or whether that material would best be dealt with elsewhere - can be continued on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it should definitely be closed. We have a consensus (with, unless I have missed something, a single dissenting voice). This unnecessary distraction is wasting valuable editing time. Tim riley (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. together with the relevant bits of Talk:The Flashman Papers, in the hope that both can be authoritatively put to bed. Tim riley (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/The_Flashman_Papers/archive1&oldid=1079643273"