Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/February 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 Sephiroth BCR 23:12, 10 February 2009 [1].

---

List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

Notified: Scorpion0422, WP SWEDEN, WP NORWAY, WP PRIZE

List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates should be delisted as a featured list immediately. I was the creator of the list, and I'm amazed that it was nominated and promoted to FL without proper research, and nobody notified about the FL nomination to me. Many rationales given in the list are flawed. Examples?

The purpose of FLRC is improvement, not removal for the sake of it. Please also read the FLRC instructions: "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates), or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily." Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, this list shouldn't have been promoted to FL. This list fails Wikipedia:Featured list criteria because rationales given from 1901 to 1989 are flawed. A featured list is supposed to exemplify our very best work, but this list isn't the best. AdjustShift (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, but we can't do anything about that now. There is no such thing as an immediate delist, and the only thing that can happen is improvement. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Institut de Droit International won the Prize in 1904 not because it is a "Scientific Society, Founded in 1873". It was honored for its efforts as an unofficial body to formulate the general principles of the science of international law.

• • Ernesto Teodoro Moneta won the Prize in 1907 not because he was "President, Lombard League of Peace". He was President of Lombard League of Peace at the time he won the Prize. That was not the reason why he won the Prize. He won because of his leadership during the Italian peace movement.

• • Elihu Root won the Prize in 1912 not because he was "ex-Secretary of State". He won the Prize primarily for his strong interest in international arbitration and for his plan for a world court, which was later established in 1920.
    • You know, it does also say "Originator of various treaties of arbitration." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • But that was not the specific reason why he won the Prize. Nobelprize.org has only provided specific rationales from 1989. Before that, it has not provided specific rationales. We have to use different approach for this list. AdjustShift (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rationales given for so many Peace Prize laureates are flawed. Nobelprize.org has not provided specific rationales for awarding the Peace Prize from 1901 to 1989. We have to work harder, and find specific rationales from elsewhere. Copy-and-paste won't work. When I created the list I was aware of these problems. I was busy working on the bios of American Civil War generals, so I couldn't work on the list for so long. It is embarrassing that this list was promoted to FL. AdjustShift (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"without proper research", that's highly insulting, and why should I have notified you about the nomination? Sure, you created it, but you abandoned it soon after. I am more than aware that many of the rationales leave much to be desired, and I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment AdjustShift, list all of the entries that you have a problem with, and I'll find full rationales (and sources for them). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and several speedy keep comments

Comment - I would like to apologize if you find my comment insulting. I don't want to insult anyone. I didn't abandoned it soon after. Nobelprize.org has not provided specific rationales for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize from 1901 to 1989. Rationales given from 1901 to 1989 are flawed. I should have been notified because I was aware of these problems. AdjustShift (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So if you were aware, why didn't you say anything before? You should have left comments on the talk page so we could work together and bring things up to code. I have expanded the rationales for the examples you brought up. Please list the rest of the entries you believe need more detail. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We have to change rationales from 1901 to 1989. We have to add proper citations from 1901 to 1989. AdjustShift (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep per FLRC requirement I echoed User:Dabomb87's comment that the purpose of this process is for improvement, not removal. That aside, I want to speed keep this article because I am not convinced by the nominator's argument. All listed complaints appear to be easy fixes that can be resolved via the list's talk page.—Chris! _ct 00:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Speedy keep??? Chris, rationales given from 1901 to 1989 are flawed. I don't think it can be solved that easily. FLs are supposed to be the best lists on WP. List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates has many flaws. AdjustShift (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be no "speedy keep" or "immediate removal". I will say it again: this process is for improvement, not just general downing statements. Whether the article was promoted or not with AdjustShift's approval doesn't matter anymore; the past cannot change. What we can control is the present. I see AdjustShift has lightened up a bit. Can we just focus on improving the article for now, and worry about the article's status in two weeks? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – that you were the creator of the list and were not notified means squat in terms of the list's featured status. Part of me is calling you out on the more or less obvious fact that if you were actually watching the article, you would have noticed the massive changes it undergone for FLC. In any case, there is no "speedy delist" criteria aside from non-controversial merge proposals (that come with a preexisting consensus) and rather blatant copyright infringement. In any case, if the rationales are flawed, then work with Scorpion in fixing them. Why you simply didn't bring up these concerns on the talk page is beyond me, but whatever at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - sephiroth bcr, when you create something (article or list), you have certain vision about it. When I create it, I wanted to make it more academically acceptable list. The list almost entirely depends on Nobelprize.org; I wanted to add information provided in books and academic journals in the list. This list is an academic list; it is not a pop-culture list. A student or researcher of international relations or political science may use the list for reference. If this were a pop-culture list, I would have brought these concerns on the talk page, but this is an academic list; any article or list related to academics should be perfect. I blame myself for not doing enough for the list before it became a FL. But, I can’t change the past. AdjustShift (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep Please work on improving this article rather than delist it; it seems you know the topic well. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Snowy/Speedy Keep - per FLRC instructions outlined above.--TRUCO 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Have you read the entire discussion? There should be no "speedy keep" or "immediate removal"; the list has many flaws, and we have to eradiate them. AdjustShift (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have asked Sephiroth to leave this open for the time being, so please stop with the speedy removalkeep comments. AdjustShift, please list every entry here that you have a problem with (and don't just say all). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well most of those were "Speedy keep". Just saying.--TRUCO 20:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I got my terminology mixed up. Fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never said that I've problems with all rationales. Do I've to copy-and-paste every rationales from 1900s to 1980s here? For 1901 Peace Prize Laureate Frédéric Passy, rationale given is "Founder and President of first French peace society (since 1889 called Société française pour l'arbitrage entre nations)". Passy was "Founder and President of first French peace society" in 1901. That was not the specific reason why he won the Prize. The citation given is also flawed. There are so many similar flaws. I'll start the correction process from today. I'll also add comments on the talkpage of the list. AdjustShift (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the status here? If the rationales have been fixed, then there should be no reason to keep this FLRC open. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 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 Sephiroth BCR 23:08, 21 February 2009 [2].

---

Golden Globe Award for Best Director

Notified: Legionarius, WP PRIZE, WP FILMS.

Has many of the same problems as Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama:

• Prose: Not enough to begin with, but what is there is surely not of a professional standard. "This page lists the winners and nominees for the Golden Globe Award for Best Director, since its institution in 1943." We don't start lists like this anymore, and the comma is not necessary. "Elia Kazan is the biggest winner" What?
• Lead: Needs expansion. There is not much background and more summary of the list is needed.
• Sources: Cites IMBD, which is generally not considered a reliable source. Not much other diversity in sources.
• MOS and structure Linked bold text, colors in table have not accompanying symbol (shouldn't use bold for this purpose). A key should be included (instead of being integrated into text). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is a Featured List. Featured lists are believed to be the best lists in Wikipedia. These lists are reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates for usefulness, completeness, accuracy, neutrality, style and prose according to featured list criteria. Since this met all the requirements, who are you to decide it should be removed? And if you're so sure it doesn't qualify, then why don't you edit it instead of just complaining about it? Why are there so many Wikipedia editors who do nothing but find fault with articles and never do any constructive writing to fix them? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article was reviewed a long time ago. Standards have risen a lot since then. I gave examples of fixes needed. There is no obligation for reviwers/nominators to fix the article themselves. At the talk pages of the article and the FLC nominator, I left notices that asked if anyone would be interested in bringing the articles back to FL standards. When nobody replied after some days, I nominated the article to FLRC. I myself don't decide whether the article deserves to be removed from FL status, that is for the community and FLRC delegate to determine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I also checked this list out in reviewing the Motion Picture - Drama list, and I concur with DB87. In addition, I find the comments made by 67.79.157.50 to be uncivil and request their retraction. The onus of improvement does not fall on the nominator and DB87 is undeserving of such vitriol. He is a strong contributor to the English Wikipedia and should not be slandered in such a way. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. There is no way this would pass as a FL now. The names should be sortable by surname, and the titles without the articles. The lead fails to give me enough information, so that i had to go to the main article, and doesn't give any intresting information about list stats.Yobmod (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - per nom, fails to meet the current featured list criteria.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist No attempt has been made to resolve my concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, fails criteria, and no attempt to save has been made. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 15 February 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 Sephiroth BCR 23:12, 10 February 2009 [3].

---

Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama

Notified: Legionarius, WP:PRIZE, WP:FILM ♦ KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The FL criteria

• 1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.

Fails Cr.1. There is very little prose to judge, but what is there no longer meets the criteria for FLs; for example, it begins with "This page lists...".

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

Fails Cr.2. The lead section does nothing to engage the readers and barely explains the list. A more in-depth coverage of the award and its history is needed.

• 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.

Passes Cr.3.; however, an issue has been raised at the talk page questioning the factual accuracy. I haven't checked the entries myself. The 2008 section is also incomplete.

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

Fails Cr.4.2. Sort facilities are not included and could be easily worked in, though the table structure would have to be re-thought.

• 5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.

Fails Cr.5. One glaring example is the title, which uses a spaced em-dash. This is in violation of WP:DASH. WP:BOLDFACE is violated in the table, as are WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS (also part of Cr.6).

• 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; and it has a minimal proportion of red links.

Fails Cr.6. The table should have a key; currently, the "key" is part of the lead, which emphasizes further the shortcomings of this list. The color problem was mentioned above, and there are no images at all, even though one was associated with this article on the Main Page today.

• 7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

Passes Cr. 7.

Failure of 5½ out of the 7 criteria is more than grounds for a removal nom. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Golden Globe Award for Best Director — Motion Picture also fails all of the above criteria; indeed, it is almost identical. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to save this myself, but I have addressed the concerns you made at Cr.3 (including the talk page thing). Another problem is I am not enough of a film buff to know which producers to list. For example, the "American Gangster" entry only lists Grazer as producer, whereas it article lists Ridley Scott, Brian Grazer, James Whitaker, Steven Zaillian, and Nicholas Pileggi all as producers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DASH says If used in an article's title, there should be a redirect from the version with a hyphen. -- The dash here is fine, so long as a redirect exists. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's fine now, but it was only recently moved to comply with MOS. The redirect does exist. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I was the one who moved the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - fails WP:WIAFL per the reasons stated above, practically what I would have state, unless those issues are fixed, this no way meets the FL criteria.--TRUCO 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Little improvement has been made. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Concur per the above; after a re-review, few if any changes have been made. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. Dabomb87's initial analysis was correct, and little has changed. Also, it is not up to editors to decide which producers are significant, so the vast majority of entries having only one producer listed is no good.Yobmod (talk) 17:38, 9 February 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 Sephiroth BCR 23:12, 10 February 2009 [4].

---

List of Metal Gear Solid characters

Notified: WP Video Games and The Bread

This list fails to note any independent reliable sources for real-world impact or reception any of the characters have had.じんない 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep: I see some reliable sources (such as the making-of DVD by the game's developers) and parts with reception (such as IGN and other sites). I don't think this issue merits it being de-FL'd.--_ZXCVBNM 21:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Making of the DVD is not good enough to denote real-world impact or coverage. It's still good to have, but cannot replace it.じんない 03:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) May not be bad, but needs improvement to meet current standards. More specifically, it fails FL criteria on prose, sources and comprehensiveness.

• Lead needs a little expansion—note that FLs do not start out like "This is a list of..." anymore.
• IMBD is generally not a reliable source.
• Some unencyclopedic tone (use of second person): "The name "Octopus" is derived from The Octopus from The Spirit who, like Decoy Octopus, is a master of disguise and whose face you never see."
• Generally needs work on the prose, samples:
  • "In Metal Gear Solid he does battle with Snake twice, the first battle with Raven in an M1 Abrams tank,[47] the second in a freezer with Raven being killed." Logical flow absent here.
  • "similar fourth wall breaking acts" "wall breaking" needs a hyphen.
  • "is still popular amongst the staff at Konami." "amongst" is archaic, use "among".
  • "Kenneth Baker (voiced by Allan Lurie and Yuzuru Fujimoto) is the president of ArmsTech, one of the leading manufacturers of the arms industry and taken prisoner by FOXHOUND." Needs a comma after "industry".
  • "He appeared in Metal Gear as FOXHOUND's commanding officer and sends Solid Snake into Outer Heaven, a fortified nation in South Africa, to destroy Metal Gear TX-55." Not sure what appearing in a previous game has to do with sending someone into "Outer Heaven", these ideas should not be contained in the same sentence as currently written.
• "Gray Fox" section has no citations.
• Inline citations need publishers, and the last access dates should be in the same format. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A reception/impact section is still needed of some sort. Merchandising (which i know there is information on it) should also be in for a FL article. Character lists need to show "real world impact" and for FLs, which are the ones people look to for examples of what an article should look like, this requirement is paramount.じんない 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Delist Little effort has been make to address my comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delist as needing too much work, and without a dedicated editor to spend time on it. Renominate for FL if and independant sources found and other problems fixed. The making of DVD would be enough to save it from AfD, but not for FL imo.Yobmod (talk) 17:03, 5 February 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 Sephiroth BCR 23:12, 10 February 2009 [5].

---

List of Merriam–Webster's Words of the Year

Notified: Dem393, WP COMEDY, WP LITERATURE.

• Delist, and merge to Word of the year. First off, this has no reason at all to exist as a separate article, as it is simply one variant on the same theme, none of the rest of which have their own articles. Secondly...
• Featured List Criteria:
  • Prose: Fail. Wanders from nonsensical to misleading to unparseable.
  • Lead: Pass, thoroughly.
  • Comprehensiveness: Pass, thoroughly.
  • Structure: Neutral: The structure is not confusing, but it is excessively overstructured for such a simple topic. The entire piece, stripped of its OR can be reduced to a subsection in a broader article that is presently rather lacking due to the content being mis-located in this overblown list article.
  • Style: Fail. Serious deficiencies (not in formatting and italics-here or double-quotation-marks-there, but in basic Wikipedia article formation and standards generally).
  • Visual appeal: Neutral. Not particularly relevant to material this textual in nature. If tables were needed, they have been handled properly, but they are emphatically unnecessary when the OR material is removed.
  • Stability: Neutral. Long dormant for the most part, but with few major editors before the WP:FL process started, so a moot point.
• Broader Featured Article Criteria that also necessarily apply to featured lists, as a subset of featured articles:
  • Factually accurate: Dismal fail. In particular, the definitions provided cannot possibly match the intent of the authors of the material the article covers.
  • Neutral: Dismal fail: Definitions provided are in many cases highly biased and selective.
  • Consistent citations: Neutral. The citations are consistent in format, to an extent, but are not consistent in the broader meaning of the term. They are principally citations to definitions preferred by, convenient to or simply first identified by various editors of the article, but not consistent with the often clear intent of the article subject's creators' intentions with regard to the words in question.
  • Length: Fail-ish. Overly-long for the subject matter in question, due to extensive quotation of extraneous, irrelevant, even counter-productive definitions (cf. the proposed merge target, Word of the year, for a lean, clear counter-example).
• Issues, in detail:^*
  • Doesn't any of this strike anyone else but me as kind of veering between polemical, snide, pseudo-intellectual, off-kilter, nonsensical and occasionally possibly accidentally correct? Some of these definitions are so of-base it astounds me.
    • "terrorism: (noun) Use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a person, especially for political purposes." Um, well, just, uh, NO. The entire concept of terrorism is that it is against a supra-individual entity, such a country, government, nation, ethnicity, etc. The presence of the word "person" in that definition suggests that it was written by a child, or to be understood only by a child.
    • "google: (verb) Using the Google search engine to look up information about a person." Or an object, a question, a company, a product, a chemical, a term, a... Why "a person"?!?
    • "apathetic: (adjective) No feeling or passion, indifferent." That's not even grammatical. Proof: "I'm apathetic today". Case 1: I'm indifferent today." PASS. Case 2: I'm no feeling or passion today." FAIL: DOES NOT PARSE AS ENGLISH.
  • I could give a dozen more examples like that before even touching the more the subtle matters like the highly politically-charged, even jingoistic definitions of some of these terms, and the blindingly-obvious misinterpretations.
  • I insist that we have a serious issue here. The questions are: a) Are the definitions given in the article those given by the M–W WotY selection committee itself, or are they definitions culled by WP editors from random sources, of differing levels of reliability, of variable amounts of specificity and applicability, and (probably notably) of different ages; and b) if they are not from the M–W WotY committee, are they actually applicable to the intentions of the committee in the sense(s) in which these words were nominated, and if allegedly so, what is the proof that these are not simply original research suppositions, or worse yet impositions of biased personal opinion in various cases? Given the almost certain answers to these questions, I'm frankly completely shocked that this piece has a Featured List designation. I'm so blown over by this that I can't even read it any further.
  • From what I can determine before dying of shock and excessively verbose melodrama (yes, I am making fun of myself), most if not all of these definitions appear to have been culled, often verbatim (cf. WP:COPYVIO) from the first-to-third search results at Dictionary.Reference.com.
  • I.e., this entire page is [6] [7] [8], other than the bare word-list itself.
  • I've been here for 5 years or so, I think (maybe longer by now, this being 2009 and all) and I've never seen such a candidate for WP:FLRC scrutiny. Yes, this ticks me off. No, I do not have anything at all against its editors (I did not even look at the page history, other than to ascertain that its present state was not the result of elaborate vandalism [addendum: and later to find major contributors to notify of this FLRC]). Yes, I am not being overly charitable toward this list article. I do not believe that it deserves such charity, especially given the extremes of sourcing effort, writing clarity, encyclopedic focus and other gauntlets that other lists have had to run in order to achieve FL status. It should be flensed to its bare bones and reborn (as a subsection elsewhere, as noted).
  • Finally, the decorative but space-consumptive table layout of this page can be easily condensed by conversion to simple prose after removal of all the OR blather here, and the entire article will make a neat, lean sub-section of the proposed merge target, Word of the year.
• ^* Note: My example criticisms of a few of the definitions, as applied to the contexts that our readers will be expecting, are criticisms of the dictionary sources cited, not of the good-faith editor of the WP article in question, who (per WP:RS, etc.) is not in a position to make up new definitions or cite even less reliable sources than major dictionaries. The problem is that many major dictionaries, if not all of them, are collaboratively written by a tiny handful of people compared to WP's editorship, often betray biases that escape editors-in-chief, and are perpetually behind actual usage, sometimes by decades or even generations, as well as limited in the contextually-applicable definitional scope.
• — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Now THAT's a nomination, it puts my three sentence ones to shame. Make sure you notify the user that originally nominated the list as well as all of the relevant wikiprojects. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply/Question: Notified the (only!) principal editor of the page, and (for what near-zero it is worth the one anon that made substantive edits). I'm a bit at a loss what projects to notify. Suggestions? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Aside from the 2 on the talk page I mean. They're already in my edit windows. Anyone else? I'm not trying to railroad anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment First, the merging issue should not be discussed here at all since this is FLRC. Secondly, whether this list fulfills the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is completely irrelevant because this is a featured list not featured article. So, please keep this nomination on topic. Thanks—Chris! _ct 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply: Firstly, then, sorry, but I don't treat WP administrative bailiwiks as rigidly as some. I have zero problem discussing the potential of a merge in the middle of a WP:AFD debate, or discussing the WP:RM and WP:NC article-naming ramifications of a series of articles when a WP:CFD nomination raises issues with the name of the category that they are in, or discussing the Featured Article/List/Whatever consequences of an article in the middle of a merge discussion. These things do not exist in vacuums, but often interrelate. What I expect here is a clear delisting as a FL, and some interest generated, at Talk:Word of the year at the merge thread already started there, from parties to this discussion who might otherwise never have even noticed. I think such breadth would be helpful, in a two-way manner. Second, I have to disagree with your interpretation of the relationship between FAs and FLs. FLs are a subset. The sourcing/accuracy requirements of FAs apply to FLs as well (I mean, let's be real about this – WP:V is policy, across the board. Lists are not magically exempt from policy!). Thirdly, that nitpick seems a bit off-point, anyway, as substantial FL-only issues have been raised. Do you have any objections to those? If you are picking a WP:PROCESS bone with me, I think we must be talking past each other. I have a years-long reputation as one of the staunchest WP:PROCESS people on the system. If that's not your point, I may be missing something, and if so please restate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Chris, when SM says "Broader Featured Article Criteria that also necessarily apply to featured lists", he is correct. Note the preamble of the FL criteria, which states that the article must meet FL criteria "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), non-free content and what Wikipedia is not". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. All I want is to keep this discussion on topic.—Chris! _ct 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Keen by me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Um, as an FYI, tone down the rhetoric. I realize that you apparently hate the "jingoistic" nature of this list, but let's keep it to an objective level, shall we? How shocked, abashed, overblown, appalled, disgusted, or stunned you are (to illustrate how many times you expressed your discontent with this list) is not really going to change how I close this nomination or opinions here, and frankly is plain silly after a certain point. Anyhow, on the topic of the definitions, if the Merriam-Webster definitions were the ones utilized for all items, then it would be an improvement. You can't really claim that they're OR at that point, and whether we want to include definitions or not here is up to the consensus here (seemed to be consensus for their inclusion in the FLC for whatever it's worth). As for the merge suggestion, FLRC isn't the place for it unless you already have a preexisting consensus to do so. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delist. Would using Mirriam-webster's definitions be ok for copyright? If so, they should be used, and the list as it is delisted until/unless it is fully sourced including the definitions. The use of many different sources makes this seem very strange - doesn't MW give the deifnitions when they announce the winners?. Aren't the definitions they give only one meaning?, not all meanings of the word or homonyms. Overall i don't think it is as far of FL as the nominator insists, but i also don't think it would pass now. Yobmod (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, but Neutral on move. I'm no English major, but I can clearly tell that some of these definitions are not correct, and there are serious prose issues to boot. However, I believe this can exist as a stand-alone list; it is self-contained, and on a definite, verifiable subject. That said, it needs major work to get it to featured list status, and should be removed unless serious improvements are made.-RunningOnBrains 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

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