Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2020

Keep

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 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play

Notified: WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Theatre

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... largely the same reasons as Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play but will quote here in relevant part: "The lead is nothing like it was when the list was promoted. The table is completely unreferenced now as well. No references to the winners, no references to support the characters the winners or nominees play, no references to support the nominees. No scope row tags. Cannot sort the main table. There's a trivia section which goes directly counter to MOS:TRIVIA. If you're colorblind you're out of luck trying to tell which is the winner from the tables. Changes came after a bogus "consensus" emerged on the talk page of Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play three years ago."

Therapyisgood (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tentative delist with a bold suggestion although I got the feeling from re-visiting that discussion that delisting these articles was exactly what HesioneHushabye wanted (to whit: I'm not looking for my version to be a featured list candidate (nor do I think the current version should be). I would advocate restoring this version and adding the last four years of winners. I'll do it myself if we think that's a better approach to these lists than simply living with such complete crap. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would support that as well --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you Guerillero. That approach could also be applied at the other FLRC, i.e. here if we get some agreement to do so? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would support that in both cases. The current versions are appalling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris. I'd be interested in hearing what PresN and Giants2008 have to say about this? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  That solution sounds fine to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Therapyisgood, Giants2008, Guerillero, ChrisTheDude, and The Rambling Man, I've had a go at correcting the table per your discussion. I've reintroduced the table used when the list was promoted and I've restored the lead too. The table has been updated to reflect the recent winners and referenced. Let me know if anything else needs to be amended. :) NapHit (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @NapHit: Things like this are broken {{ref|5|[V]}}. Any idea why? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  I forgot to add the notes back in, Guerillero. Should be sorted now. I have a question regarding the book sources, should they be moved into a bibliography and the pages used as refs, instead of the whole book being used a reference? NapHit (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  NapHit absolutely marvellous, thanks very much indeed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep thanks to some sterling work, we've got our (featured) list back! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - 2007, 1974, 1950 and 1947 don't have a ref. Is this covered somewhere else? Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The award wasn't held in 1948 or 1950. I've added refs to cover 1974 and 2007. Thanks for the comment Aza24. NapHit (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep after the addition of missing refs by NapHit (thank you for doing so) - Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would say generally that the Internet Broadway Database should be added as a reference above the "references" section because the reference in the table only references who played the winning character. I also would say the Tony Awards archived site should be added as a general reference too. The notes use Template:Ref which is depreciated and should be Template:Refn or Template:Efn. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Therapyisgood I've added two refs to the top of the table. From what I gather, the practice of adding general refs is no considered good practice. The notes are using the efn template. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

NapHit There are a few dead links, namely refs 1, 2, 28, 47, 71 (is giving an error of sorts), 52 could use the new URL, and the URL in the infobox is dead as well. Thank you for the work you've done so far. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Therapyisgood archived links added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep Looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:35, 21 June 2020 (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 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [2].

---

Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play

Notified: WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Theatre

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... The lead is nothing like it was when the list was promoted. The table is completely unreferenced now as well. No references to the winners, no references to support the characters the winners or nominees play, no references to support the nominees. No scope row tags. Cannot sort the main table. There's a trivia section which goes directly counter to MOS:TRIVIA. If you're colorblind you're out of luck trying to tell which is the winner from the tables. Changes came after a bogus "consensus" emerged on the talk page of Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play three years ago. @The Rambling Man: who made excellent points at Talk:Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play#Suggestions. The ownership of this page is toxic. Glad to get it demoted, but wished the better version could have prevailed.

Therapyisgood (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Tentative delist it all went south on this edit which seemed to bring this list down by a considerable amount to somehow align it with other mediocre Tony Award lists. Unless something akin to the FL-consensus version is restored, this is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Holy moley, just re-read the talk page discussion noted above (at Talk:Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play#Suggestions) where basically that list was destroyed by HesioneHushabye and Angelic-alyssa. What a total mess. Perhaps someone needs to boldly restore each of these lists to the versions that had community consensus at FLC and then add the last few years of winners. What we have now for Tony lists is a complete car crash. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  We'd better keep our eyes peeled on seminal works like Academy Award for Best Actor, Laureus World Sports Award for Sportswoman of the Year, Pritzker Architecture Prize, List of Turner Prize winners and nominees etc... as well if the "Tony standard" is the one which appears to be advocated as "the new consensus". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Ok, I've been bold and gone through the list and restored the table to the form it was in before the aforementioned edit above. The list has also been updated and the lead restored to its former glory. FYI, The Rambling Man, Therapyisgood. NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Keep thanks to special work from NapHit, with my sincerest thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would say generally that the Internet Broadway Database should be added as a reference above the "references" section because the reference in the table only references who played the winning character. I also would say the Tony Awards archived site should be added as a general reference too. The notes use Template:Ref which is depreciated and should be Template:Refn or Template:Efn. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Therapyisgood I've added two refs to the top of the table. From what I gather, the practice of adding general refs is no considered good practice. The notes are using the efn template. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

NapHit There are a few dead links, namely references 1, 24, 25, 38, and 45, and the URL in the infobox. Thank you for your work so far. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Therapyisgood archived links added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep Looks good to me. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think we're done on this and the other such list Giants2008, PresN, so suggest they're both checked for closure. Cheers to everyone who made it work to restore these lists to their former glory. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:30, 21 June 2020 (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 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Major League Baseball single-game home run leaders

Notified: Staxringold, WP:MLB

The list has numerous issues: (1) multiple sources are dead; (2) multiple sections of the lead lack inline citations; (3) the prose is choppy and written poorly, as it is just a list of random facts about four-home run games. I also feel like the scope of this article, as titled, isn't comprehensive. In reality this is a List of Major League Baseball four-home run games, which would be a better title that accurately captures the scope of this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy to take a look at salvaging this one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Gonzo_fan2007

Resolved comments from « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

**ChrisTheDude what is your opinion on the name? In my opinion, it's like calling the List of Major League Baseball perfect games article List of Major League Baseball single-game pitching leaders. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC) I guess it's to be consistent with List of Major League Baseball single-inning home run leaders, which isn't called List of Major League Baseball two-home run innings even though all the players listed hit precisely two homers in the inning in question. Bloom6132, any views on the names? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC) It does beg the question, what would happen to these lists if someone hit 5 hrs in a game or 3 hrs in an inning?? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC) My apologies ChrisTheDude, for some reason I never got an alert notifying me that I had been pinged and only stumbled upon this through a cursory scroll. The naming convention stems from a discussion (maybe RFC) a couple of years ago – I'll try to find it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Found it – it was a brief discussion between a few WikiProject members, based off this earlier poll from August 2015. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Bloom6132, thanks for the background discussion. I still think that the questions of what this list would look like if a player hits 5 HRs in one game (something that is very possible in this era). Would this list just be one entry? Would you keep the 4 HR games as well, and if so, that would beg the question why we don't include 3 HR games in the list right now. It's all hypothetical at this point, but still I think there is a point to be made in thinking it through. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Gonzo_fan2007: That hypothetical has been answered in the FLs List of Major League Baseball single-game runs batted in leaders, List of Major League Baseball single-game strikeout leaders, and List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders. They have an extra column listing out the number of RBIs, strikeouts or hits each player attained in those games. The reason why that isn't necessary now is because all players holding the record for most HRs in a single game hit the same quantity. And to answer your question on why 3 HR games are not included – it would be neither relevant nor feasible. It's been accomplished a grand total of 617 times (296 AL + 320 NL + 1 Am. Assn.), with 104 players doing it more than once and 11 players doing it in the playoffs. To put that into perspective, the baseball FL with most entries (330 at List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle) is half as large as a hypothetical list that would contain both 3 and 4 HRs (both regular season and postseason). —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC) I guess that is my point. The breakpoint for inclusion in the list, as well as the others, is somewhat arbitrary (10 RBIs, 18 strikeouts, 4 HRs, etc). Why not 9 RBIs, 17 strikeouts, and 3 HRs. That is a somewhat rhetorical question, as I imagine that each list would grow exponentially. I guess it all doesn't matter, more hypothetical at this point. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC) I replaced the only ref which had a dead link tag against it - are there are any others with issues? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude I don't know. I would check everything that comes up here though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC) Refs are still a mess. Refs need to be consistent with use of fields (work, website, publisher, etc. are they all linked? Are they .com (CBSSports.com vs CBC Sports) or not? etc). Ref 39 and 40 have "Sports Reference LLC" while the other baseballreference.com cites don't. Lots of changes made to ref formatting, can you let me know if I have missed anything? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Looks much better ChrisTheDude. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Ideally, the refs should all be archived to prevent link rot. Ref 10 and 11 aren't done correctly. They should reference the source, ideally using {{Sfn}} or something similar. If you are unfamiliar with {{Sfn}} Packers sweep uses it. The use of "General" reference sections is somewhat outdated. If there is one source that provides the entire table, then inline cite that somewhere in the table. You could add the inline cite after "Stats updated as of 2019 season." General refs section is gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Ref 13 is dead. Ideally, you should check every link to make sure it isn't dead and then update the access-date field with today's date to indicate the most recent time they were accessed. Ref 13 works absolutely fine for me, I can screenshot it if proof is needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Sorry, ref 12. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Replaced that ref with a new one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC) This list is missing post-season games. This goes back to my original comment, that List of Major League Baseball four-home run games would be a more appropriate name for the current state of this article. In it's current state, it fails criteria 3, since it isn't comprehensive (especially since you mention the 3-home run postseason games in the lead). A separate postseason table would satisfy this issue. Currently the 18 players listed here are in an 18-way tie for first place for most HRs hit in a game in MLB history. Why introduce a second table of players who have hit fewer, simply because it happened in post-season play? I don't see the logic. Such players are not "single-game home run leaders".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC) So, hypothetically, J.D. Martinez has a monster day this season and smashes five HRs in one game, this list would be reduced to just him? Regarding the post-season, statistics and records for post-season are tracked separately by MLB (i.e. if you hit 30 home runs in the regular season, and then 5 home runs in the postseason, those numbers are not combined in your season totals) and are routinely reported on, see [4] [5] [6] for a few examples. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude, see here for another example regarding postseason games. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC) I will add a second table shortly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude – you're right, there is no need to add a second table. The table in List of Major League Baseball single-inning strikeout leaders includes Orval Overall, who struck out 4 batters in the World Series. The only reason why this table does not include single-game home run leaders in the postseason is because no one to date has hit 4 home runs in a postseason game. Once that happens, they will be added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Unless I missed it, there is probably something to be said about hitting 4 hrs in 4 consecutive at-bats. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC) I have no strong opinion on whether or not there should be a second table. You guys come to a decision and I will make it/not make it accordingly :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC) ChrisTheDude, although I appreciate Bloom6132 input in the matter, this is my comment about the article and not something I need to collaborate on. I appreciate the background on why these articles are titled the way they are, but it is not something I agree with in regards to this specific article. Again, my point is if this article was called List of Major League Baseball players with four or more home runs in a game, then by all means, don't include postseason games (since there have been no 4 HRs games in the postseason). And then, if someone does hit 5 HRs, it can be easily included. But, as currently titled, the scope of this article necessitates the inclusion of the postseason record (because postseason single game records are tracked separately by reliable sources). Importantly, the inclusion of the postseason record does not take away from or confuse the article in anyway. If anything, it clarifies and expands on the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead: No player has ever hit four home runs in a postseason game; that record is three, first accomplished by Babe Ruth in Game 4 of the 1926 World Series. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC) @Gonzo fan2007: "it is not something I agree with in regards to this specific article" – the WikiProject Baseball community came to a consensus on how these baseball lists be formatted, and many of these lists which have been recently promoted to FL are based of this "uniform template/guide". That consensus should be respected, notwithstanding any personal disagreement with it. And one cannot pick and choose which baseball lists to apply this consensus to. A format either applies to all or it applies to none. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Bloom6132, to be clear, the discussion you linked to was about general naming convention and included 3 editors. But regardless, you are completely missing the point. I am not arguing for a renaming, I am arguing that if this title is the one everyone agrees to, then the article needs to include the postseason record for most HRs in a game (see my previous comment starting with But, as currently titled...). One of the reasons I am supporting delisting this article is based WP:FLCR #3, as the article lacks comprehensiveness. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC) @Gonzo fan2007: Well, I think you are the one missing the point by demanding delisting of this FL. "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items" This list does just that – it provides all the major items. It is not required to provide a complete set (though in my judgment as the promoter of 15 baseball-related FLs, it indeed does). As I had detailed above, it is not practical to add the single-game postseason record, because that would open the floodgates to adding the regular-season 3 HR games. Just because you don't like how this list does not include the postseason "record" does not mean it should be delisted. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Bloom6132, I sincerely mean this to be taken with no offense, but I didn't ask for your input in my discussion with ChrisTheDude. If you want to start your own heading, provide your input, and vote keep, you are completely welcome to. At this point we are just going in circles. This is a consensus discussion and the FLC director that will close this discussion is perfectly capable of weighing consensus. I have made my point with sufficient reasoning behind it, you disagree, which is fine. Lastly, a word of advice: there is no need to link to essays—especially to regulars who have been editing for a while—to make your point (it really just comes across as patronizing). This is especially true when the essay isn't relevant (WP:IDL is talking about deletion discussions) and the title (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) has a super obvious meaning without linking to the essay (pretty sure everyone knows what "I don't like it" means and that you can probably safely assume that I know why that justification is a bad argument). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Since when have I been topic banned from any subject? And since when do I need to be invited into a discussion first in order to participate? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per Criterion #3 - Comprehensiveness. ChrisTheDude has done an admirable job and greatly improved the list. However, because MLB and 3rd party reliable sources track postseason single game records separately from the regular season, I strongly believe this list is not fully complete without the addition of the postseason record. This is especially true considering the lead specifically cites the postseason record of 3 HRs. ChrisTheDude, I am happy to switch my vote if this is something you are willing to implement. If so, please feel free to contact me directly to let me know of the change. Considering the rest of my comments have been resolved, I feel comfortable disengaging from this discussion at this time and would appreciate it if all editors would respect that. Thanks again ChrisTheDude for all the improvement you made to the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008

• Comment – The biggest issue with the list is clearly the lead section. There's no reason that any article should have eight mostly stubby paragraphs in a lead. Bringing the lead in line with how the single-inning leaders list looks would be a major step forward, as much of the current uncited content would likely be removed, and sourcing the rest wouldn't be such a big job. If that's done, I see no reason why FL status couldn't be saved here. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll get onto that in the coming week...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• I have revised the lead somewhat, let me know what you think.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead looks better ChrisTheDude. More specific comments below above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that the lead is much stronger. I won't declare a position in case I have to close the FLRC, but my major concern appears to have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep – improvements made by ChrisTheDude have taken this back to FL level. It is unnecessary to include the postseason single-game record, and doing so alone will not make this list meet criterion #3. The stubborn insistence of including this (detailed in all its glory above) is sadly mistaken and misguided. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• File:Shawn Green.jpg and File:Arizona Diamondbacks player jd Martinez.jpg need personality rights templates at the Commons.

• File:Shawn Green.jpg and File:Arizona Diamondbacks player jd Martinez.jpg need alt-text. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt text added. I haven't a clue what personality rights templates are or how to add them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• The ISBN for references 10 11 and 43 should be added and should be the ISBN-13 per WP:ISBN. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Changes that have been made have brought the list back up to featured standard. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Changes above have returned it to FL standard. - Aza24 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Delist

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) 00:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Chinese inventions

Notified: PericlesofAthens, WikiProject Chinese history, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject Invention, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject History of Science

Since the first FL removal discussion it has been three months time to clean up the article to meet FL standards. While undoubtedly many low quality entries have been removed, the list still suffers from the flaws that I pointed out then, namely WP:OR and WP:SYN. While the core of entries that elevated the list to FL in 2008 is mostly well-sourced, the hundreds of entries added since have deteriorated the overall list quality. Many of the claims make too much of the source they refer to, blowing up vague references to oldest evidence in a certain cultural, temporal or geographical context to an absolute claim of global priority for China. To give you an idea of the nature of the problem see this sample of ten supposedly Chinese inventions I collected after the clean-up was finished.

Source quality and interpretation are one thing, another is the seemingly boundless time frame of the list. While invention lists for other peoples and eras are careful not to overstep boundaries of time and space, the section "Pre-Shang" extends Chinese inventions to 20,000 BC (entry "Cookware and pottery vessel"). Where will attribution to the Chinese stop, with Peking Man? Instead of FL status the list urgently needs to be tagged for serious contents and definitional issues. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

To spur a discussion all editors who have participated in the first candidacy have been informed of this one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Easy delist --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Confused about the process of opening a second delist discussion, but, not up to par and not looking like things will be fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Khirurg (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
• Definite Keep. This entire voting process is rigged as practically the only people re-invited here (April 22nd) are those who voted for delisting the last time an attempt was made to delist this article. The two who voted for keeping it were either uninivited: Pericles of Athens^Talk. Or inactive for a month by the time the newest notification for voting this article down was sent out: Khanate General ☪ talk User:Khanate General. Furthermore, there's no invitation notification put in the head of this article for others to know of this voting process taking place (there is that option), which decreases the chance of additional voters to chime in. Which I wouldn't otherwise complain about if not for the very skewed invite. Secondly, I have some concern with the list of issues brought up. For example, acupuncture and animal zodiacs are not inventions of something purely physical, ergo historic connections are necessary to establish invention, not just similarity, otherwise the Chinese would have invented soccer not Britain. Ergo if some other society had needles for medicinal practices, that in itself is a separate practice from Chinese acupuncture unless evidence can be brought that Chinese acupuncture derived from those earlier needle practices. What problems amongst the ten listed that I think are valid could easily be deleted rather than delisted as the article already separates inventions into categories in alphabetical order so not really that hard to search where the article said it and delete that part. ArchimedesTheInventor 19:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  It is patently incorrect that PericlesofAthens and Khanate General weren't notified of this discussions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  You obviously didn't read what I wrote and mis-represented it. Which part of what I said was wrong?

-PericlesofAthens wasn't re-invited, re-invite being the key word. The re-invite you guys received on April 22, due to and I quote:"To spur a discussion all editors who have participated in the first candidacy have been informed of this one" was not sent out to PericlesofAthens. Are you claiming that is incorrect? If so, point out the link for his invite for April 22.

-The re-invite occurred at a point when Khanate General was inactive for a month. Are you claiming that is incorrect, if so point out any activity he made within a month of the re-invite which occurred in April 22. ArchimedesTheInventor 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

He was invited in the initial wave on the 8th instead of the second wave on the 22nd. I don't really see a problem there. If he wanted to be involved he would be involved in this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody was involved in 8th, only after the 2nd re-invite of the 22nd did anyone start getting involved, an invite he didn't receive even though the people who previously already voted for delist did. People are less inclined to join in on a blank discussion, and because of the lack of the re-invite there is no proof he would even know of later developments starting from the 22nd. There's an easy to way to solve this particular problem (not the rest of the problems mentioned), why don't you just invite him? ArchimedesTheInventor 01:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to take back by vote. I apologize, being new to wiki I mixed up "Featured list removal" with "Articles for deletion". And here I wondered how so many people would take the drastic action of deleting the entire article and redoing it from scratch when it's much easier to simply get rid of the low quality edits. But now I realize there's a difference between "Featured list removal" and "Articles for deletion". In which case, now that I know, I would like to change my vote to delist as well. I apologize once again. ArchimedesTheInventor 06:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delist, with regret. The nominator mentions concerns of the list containing entries with dubious proof of invention in China, and I am also concerned by undue weight in relation to the mention or amount of detail of some of the less groundbreaking inventions. No doubt the many contributions by unregistered and new editors in the decade since this FL's promotion have added a great deal of valuable information to the list, but it is not detailed-oriented and of consistent quality in the way that an FL needs to be. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Several of the items mentioned in the talk page seem to be reaching. Pre-Shang for example does not mention any specific inventions. The examples citied for evidence of pre-Chinese acupuncture are fringe and the wikipedia article on acupuncture make no note of them. Tea was first drunk in Yunnan, which is today part of China, and the first physical evidence of it according to wikipedia was found in a Han emperor's tomb. Given the geographical and archaeological evidence, disputing it as a "Chinese invention" seems pedantic as is arguments over the definition of a "bombard". Qiushufang (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
• Delist can't have a double-maintenance-tagged article being claimed as part of Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Would an admin be so kind and review the issue and come to a verdict? This nominations has been going on for over two months, including the first discussion even for almost half a year... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• 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) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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