Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2015
- 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 Crisco 1492 00:07, 27 March 2015 [1].
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it doesn't clearly meet our naming conventions criteria, as WP:FLC requires. The current title of this article is extremely contentious. There is also no consensus for what the appropriate titling style is for this category of articles. Many editors feel that the current title is ungrammatical and/or awkward. The editors who substantially wrote the article are in favor of the current title, but the arguments given are (1) in British English this use of a comma is not incorrect and (2) there isn't a consensus for what the substitute should be. But nobody can explain why the current title is good, much less something that the community identified as one of the best lists it created. Overall, I agree with BDD's statement that "This is a terrible title, and I'm incredulous that this made FL with such a title," and I think many other editors would agree also.
Although one would think that an agreeable substitute title could be arrived at, all attempts to resolve the issue have been futile and acrimonious. Perhaps this is another reason it shouldn't be featured – it is certainly not as if this article is an example of wikipedia's best attempts to resolve issues in a collaborative and friendly manner.
I am aware that the list was promoted less than a year ago with the current title. However, after that promotion it has become plain through discussion that there is now no consensus for the current title, so I think that this nomination complies with the rule not to nominate articles that were recently promoted for delisting. AgnosticAphid talk 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I noted my intention to post this nomination on the article's talk page.AgnosticAphid talk 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retain FL status, obviously. This is, in my view, a frivolous and unconstructive nomination, of no merit, arising from a personal, evidently obsessive, preference as regards punctuation. I mean, please! Tim riley talk 20:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Retain. WHAT?!? This FLR is initiated because someone doesn't like the *name* of the list? What a horrible waste of everyone's time. Really, initiating this FLR is an example of the worst of Wikipedia. If you don't like the name, the proper course of action is to open a discussion on the Talk page about changing the name. If you cannot raise a consensus there for changing the name, that means that the name is fine. See WP:IFITAINTBROKE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My nomination contains a link to two different acrimonious discussions on precisely the topic you patronizingly suggested. Your claim that a title that demonstrably lacks current consensus support complies with our policies and "is fine" for featured list purposes as long as it had consensus at some point in the past has no support in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, which I guess is why you linked an essay. AgnosticAphid talk 23:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you failed to establish a consensus on the talk page (twice!), and now you are trying to make an end run to get your way. Or, are you just trying to punish everyone who disagreed with you? Either way, it is really, really, very bad of you. I know that Wikipedia generally rewards persistence over quality, but I hope not in this case, and that you are persuaded to go do something useful instead. Why not go and write a great article for the encyclopedia instead of making everyone dance on the head of a pin about what might be a perfect name for this article. The current name very clearly illustrates to a reader what they will find in this article, which is the purpose of a name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate the personal attacks that you and the preceding commenter have made. I think that even aside from my personal views on the merits of the title, its contentiousness and the acrimony that it has spawned mean it is not a shining example of the best of Wikipedia for me. That's the justification I used for the featured list review and that's a more fair one to respond to. AgnosticAphid talk 23:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not regard this nomination as a legitimate use of FLR. I regard it as per se abuse of Wikipedia's processes, because bringing an FLR specifically regarding the name of the article is the tail wagging the dog. I'm sure you are a great person, and I am not attacking your intelligence, beauty or lifestyle, only your choice to pursue your opinion this way. Yes, I think it amounts to bad behavior. I will be interested to see what other editors think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wholly concur that this is an abuse of process, as I say above. It crosses my mind that in Britain we have a criminal offence of "Wasting police time", and others who speak the Queen's English may perhaps see why I mention it. Tim riley talk 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, since the featured list criteria require compliance with our article titling standards, and many, many, many, editors have expressed displeasure with both this article's title and this format of article title in the discussions I referenced, it is entirely appropriate to suggest that this article is not a shining example of our best work.
- I would also point out that I have refrained from all hostility throughout this entire process, and also have really only been tangentially involved in any of this, so it is a little unfortunate to be personally attacked for being "obsessive" and engaging in "bad behavior." AgnosticAphid talk 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wholly concur that this is an abuse of process, as I say above. It crosses my mind that in Britain we have a criminal offence of "Wasting police time", and others who speak the Queen's English may perhaps see why I mention it. Tim riley talk 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not regard this nomination as a legitimate use of FLR. I regard it as per se abuse of Wikipedia's processes, because bringing an FLR specifically regarding the name of the article is the tail wagging the dog. I'm sure you are a great person, and I am not attacking your intelligence, beauty or lifestyle, only your choice to pursue your opinion this way. Yes, I think it amounts to bad behavior. I will be interested to see what other editors think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate the personal attacks that you and the preceding commenter have made. I think that even aside from my personal views on the merits of the title, its contentiousness and the acrimony that it has spawned mean it is not a shining example of the best of Wikipedia for me. That's the justification I used for the featured list review and that's a more fair one to respond to. AgnosticAphid talk 23:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you failed to establish a consensus on the talk page (twice!), and now you are trying to make an end run to get your way. Or, are you just trying to punish everyone who disagreed with you? Either way, it is really, really, very bad of you. I know that Wikipedia generally rewards persistence over quality, but I hope not in this case, and that you are persuaded to go do something useful instead. Why not go and write a great article for the encyclopedia instead of making everyone dance on the head of a pin about what might be a perfect name for this article. The current name very clearly illustrates to a reader what they will find in this article, which is the purpose of a name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This list has been retained, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLRC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination is not related to the criteria (naming was considered appropriate at the time, and further discussion is possible). If there is concern over an article's title, please discuss it on the talk page. Frankly, I agree with Ssilvers and Tim; this is a borderline abuse of the process. Speedy retain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this is still open. If it is not, my apologies, but I was just made aware of this discussion. I will give my response as much effort as was made in nominating this list for reduction in status. KEEP. Onel5969 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 SchroCat 10:02, 3 March 2015 [2].
- Notified: Millbrooky, WikiProject Rapid transit, WikiProject Trains
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has had very few updates since its nomination in 2008. The ridership information is outdated, many of the reference links are dead, and there are no individual references for the stations on the list (i.e. "city" column, "opened" column). –Dream out loud (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have completely restructured the page: rewritten lede, all information fully cited with live links, and the most recent data available. It appears that the BSDA only takes ridership counts every 4-5 years so the FY2011 data is the most recent available; however, with the other problems fixed, I don't believe that alone requires delisting. All currently open stations have ridership counts, and the year-to-year change is not likely to be substantial. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great, thanks for cleaning it up. I definitely think it's back to FL status now, so I don't see a need for delisting anymore. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing FLRC - retaining FL status. Thanks to those who took part in improving the article. -SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.