Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

"WP:FLRC" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Flagged revisions.

Removing featured lists in Wikipedia This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable. The FLC director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be kept, consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus to delist has been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination: has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or contains a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list. Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period as featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily. A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is delisted, editors should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating at Featured list candidates.  – Table of Contents – Closing instructions

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox Featured list cleanup listing Featured list cleanup task force Article statistics

Nomination procedure Place {{subst:FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLRC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLRC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, write your reason for nominating the list, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Please note which of the featured list criteria that the list fails to meet. Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRCMessage|ArticleName|archive=# of archive page}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|archive=1}}) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured List status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLRC indicating whom you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Nominations for removal

List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments

Notified: User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... This article is frankly horrible. It lacks modern information after 2022. It's not as simple as adding the information as essentially the entire smash scene regarding rankings and tournaments imploded in 2022 when Panda Global went bust, so you'd have to add a separate ultrank 2023.1 list, then you'd have to add a separate lumirank list from when Luminosity Gaming acquired ultrank. This makes it too much work to just be a few simple edits from staying in featured lists.

A good alternative would be someone taking on the job of fully fixing this page up - which is not an easy effort.

Furthermore: there are many grammar problems found in the article. Examples being:

"In a January 2020 interview, Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa indicated that the company did not intend to support esports, stating that the company's focus was on inclusiveness, and their ability to create games that many people want to play, without the need for prize money, was one of Nintendo's strengths" - Run on sentence. "was" shouldn't be used twice here as it makes the sentence grammatically incorrect (clause being "the company's focus was on ... was one of Nintendo's strengths) versus (the company's focus on ... was one of Nintendo's strengths)

"Ultimate was released on December 7, 2018, to critical acclaim,[8][9] and broke sales records in the United States and Europe en route to becoming the best-selling fighting game of all time." - comma splice

"Players control one of over 80 characters drawn from Nintendo and third-party game franchises, and try to knock their opponents out of an arena. " - awkward + incorrect comma usage considering this sentence stands alone. should be no comma or "franchises, with the goal being to..." or similar

Many such grammatical errors in the opening, as well as outdated information which is not easily fixable, leads me to believe this is not a featured list-worthy list. Witsako (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment: I don't care what happens to this article and I'm not going to put in any effort to fix it. In 2020, several sexual misconduct scandals broke in the competitive Smash community, and after seeing how much of that community essentially went "we don't care as long as they press buttons good", I want nothing to do with Smash anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  That is entirely fair and I do not blame you whatsoever. Witsako (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Characters of God of War

Notified: JDC808, WikiProject video games

There are visible issues in the article. The lead should be updated + there are tons of unsourced statements for this to remain on the featured list + italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. The reception should be expanded/rewritten and the websites should be italicized. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Before I dive in further, you said the lead should be updated. In what way? The only thing I can maybe see is the very last paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, the last paragraph. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Here in the next couple of days, I'm going to try and sit aside some time to dig into this article and get it into shape. --JDC808 ♫ 00:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Nominator's concerns are entirely superficial and incredibly easy to fix editorially. There's nothing here that cannot be solved by one editor, as the bulk of the content meets the FL standard already. Putting editors on unnecessary time constraints because of easily fixable issues does not seem necessary when the nom could fix the issues themselves, or request the help of other editors to do so (Such as at Wikipedia:VGCHAR or Wikipedia:VG). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Assume WP:Goodfaith. I don't think this is "easily fixable" where there are several unsourced statements, PlayStation Universe is not reliable and should be removed, italicize game or film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE , and possibly some of the description/plot should be trimmed down a bit. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I never said nor implied I believed bad faith, and I apologize if it came off that way. Regardless, I do believe this can be fixed rather easily, and you reiterating your exact statements from the nom do not change my mind on the fact.

-PlayStation Universe is used once. This is a simple removal and doesn't impact the article given the wealth of other sources used in the article.

-CONFORMTITLE is a factor, sure, but that's just basic legwork. An article shouldn't be sent to a demotion process when an editor can just italicize titles in a process that takes twenty minutes at most.

-Glancing over the article, I see a few spots without cites, but they seem to be in the minority of statements. Plot statements do not need citations (Though preferred), and the few missing voice actor cites can be added or removed depending on the availability of sourcing.

-If plot should be trimmed, then there's nothing stopping you or any other editor from being Wikipedia:BOLD and trimming down the content to more manageable levels. If you're uncertain on what should be cut due to unfamiliarity, that's a process that can be discussed in venues like those I mentioned above. A lengthy demotion process like this does not need to be involved in this kind of content discussion, and the plot expansion is not so vast that it is unmanageable by just one or two editors.

I would make these changes myself, but JDC seems to be on it already above. I'll leave it in their capable hands, but this task is something easily performed, and for which a venue like this is unnecessary. Articles should only be sent to reviews or removal forums if their content is so far gone that it cannot merely be resolved through simple edits. This article does not fall under that case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Left the issues at talk page, but hasn't resolved yet; so I nomed it into here (FL has the same quality as GA, not FA). It would be more disappointing if the article was sent to featured list review, and the author possibly retired already in the future. I should have expected that it would be fairly "easy" for an editor who is very active despite the article has several unsourced statements and other stuff. I would like to apologize also if this was sent abruptly, but it doesn't need to be rushed anyway. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Re:Talk page. Can't speak on other editors, but I rarely check Talk pages unless I'm tagged or it's an article I'm currently working on and there are disagreements with another editor that needs to be resolved. So, I personally never saw that Talk page post. Tagging me on that post (or any editor who has contributed to the article) could have possibly had the issues resolved sooner and avoided this removal nom. And there is in fact a timeline on the review, so can't put this off for long. And Pokelego999, feel free to make changes that you see necessary. It would make it a little easier on me. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@JDC808 do you want me to handle the CONFORMTITLE stuff? From there I can probably look over and see if anything can be trimmed, but I don't want to interfere with anything you already have planned. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Pokelego999, that's fine. I don't have anything specific planned. I was basically just going to start at the top and address the concerns as I see them. --JDC808 ♫ 02:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@JDC808 did some italics fixes per CONFORMTITLE. Looking at the plot, a lot of the new bloat the nom seems to be referring to seems to hail from recent releases like God of War (2018 video game) and God of War Ragnarök. I'm unfamiliar with these two, so I don't know which characters should be kept on the list or not. I will leave this in your hands, but if there's anything I can do with helping to improve the article, let me know. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bleach season 4

Notified: Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

This list is missing key sections (namely production and reception), has poor sourcing (too many primary sources or lower-quality sources), and overall fails to meet present-day expectations for season articles. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1, 2, and 3. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Remove per my reasoning on the previous three seasons. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove. Not a list (no season article is a list article), not even close to GA status. Gonnym (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove per reasoning on previous season FLRCs. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

List of South America hurricanes

The template saying "factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information" has been there for over 2 years. Yilku1 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Delist An orange tag in place for that long has no place on a featured list. Departure– (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Remove. No work done to address issues. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Appy Awards

Notified: The Rambling Man, Video games, Awards, Apps, Lists

Looking at when the was nominated, which was three days after the awards were presented, it definitely seemed like a second year of these were expected but that never happened. And looking at the sources used, most of them come from the Appy Awards website itself. Also don't believe that What Mobile is a reliable source. It just looks too barebones to really be called a Featured List with it just being two paragraphs and a table. GamerPro64 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. I think it's possible that this is the best the article can ever be, which is commendable, but I also don't think every topic can qualify for featured status. I don't think this article qualifies for AFD, but the three secondary sources in Daily Telegraph, BBC, and What Mobile are all rather short and not particularly in-depth stories. A Google for "Appy Awards -wikipedia" does not turn up a lot of stuff that could be added, either. I don't think the secondary sourcing is strong enough here. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Remove Frankly, I'm not even sure this passes WP:SUSTAINED or WP:GNG in general. That it should not be featured is a foregone conclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Remove I don't think this award passes WP:GNG, since beyond the inaugural event which was itself barely covered by reliable sources, there has been no further significant coverage that indicates notability here (WP:SUSTAINED). I would probably nominate this article for AfD or for a merger to Carphone Warehouse after this FLRC closes. Either way I don't think there's enough material here to make a FL sadly. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't notable, but otherwise keep. This fails SUSTAINED and should be merged to Carphone Warehouse (and thus automatically lose FL), but it is stupid to arbitrarily declare that a list is too "barebones" when it meets the criteria just fine and there is no room for expansion. charlotte ^👸🎄 09:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • FLC3 includes "does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article," so I'd say that there's a valid concern here. More generally, some editors would look askance at backdoor removing featured status via merging the article, so having some sort of RFC-ish discussion somewhere is valid before taking action, and doing such a discussion at FLRC seems fine to me. (And to be clear, per my earlier !vote, I don't think the article necessarily "needs" to be merged to lose Featured status. Insufficient sourcing should be a problem for featured status anywhere.) SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania

Notified: WikiProject Pennsylvania

I am nominating this as the data is 25 (!!!) years out of date, missing both the 2010 and 2020 census updates. It was one of the earlier featured lists but hasn't been taken care of for well over a decade. Mattximus (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to 25 year old data, there is also lots of unsourced sections, no alt text for images, a census designated place is added for some reason (unsourced), outdated wording ("The map shown below is clickable"), broken format in notes, just very far from featured standards. Mattximus (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have notified the original FLC nominator, Ruhrfisch (diff). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Is there a model FL that we could look at for updates? Would updating to 2020 Census data be sufficient (or should the list have 2000, 2010, and 2020 data, and if so why not go back further in time)? Also, if we are making improvements, what time frame is there? - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Just 2020 should be sufficient for this list. Any more and the table would be too wide. There is quite a bit more that just the new census data needed to get it up to standard, but I'm sure there should be sufficient time if someone is working on it. Mattximus (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a link which I think should work as one reference for the 2020 US Census populations of all 52 incorporated divisions, as well as all 52 of their areas - see https://data.census.gov/profile?g=060XX00US4208102656. Or would you prefer links to each of the 52 individual 2020 US Census pages for each township, borough, and city for the population and 52 more individual links for each of the 52 areas (so 1 link or 104 links for references)? - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

One link in header would be ideal. Usually the US Census includes a single document with all the counties on one page, but honestly that is minor and can be done later. I'm happy with the link you provided in the header. No need for 104 links. Mattximus (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Could someone look at my alt texts added so far and make sure that they are OK? I am also not sure what to use for alt text for the small locator maps for each municipality. I thought of just using "locator map" as the alt text - would that be OK? I have looked for a single document for the 2020 Census for Lycoming County, but have not been able to find it so far. I am compiling the populations and areas for all 52 of the municipalities, and will then edit them all in at once. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably say something to the effect of "<blank township> highlighted in red on a map of Lycoming County." Locator map is possibly fine as well, but I don't think it's particularly helpful if we had all of the images with the exact same alt text. Appreciate your effort and work on this @Ruhrfisch! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not add alt text to the 52 Lycoming County locator maps yet. I could also do something like "Blank Township highlighted in red in northwest corner of Lycoming County map", to give a sense of where the twp is. Although there are a lot of small munis in the center of the county, which would be harder to describe. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have added alt text to all 52 locator maps in the first table per Hey man im josh's suggestion above "NAME highlighted in red on a map of Lycoming County". I think this addresses all of the major problems identified in the lede and Municipalities section. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I have made all the fixes I could find. I would appreciate it if someone took another look and let me know what else (if anything) needs to be done to keep it as a FL. Thanks in advance, - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Updates and Improvements

I am starting a new section to keep track of edits made to update and improve the list.

• Edited the lead map to remove the Census-Designate Place (CDP), and its labels, and moved the Old Lycoming Township label inside the township - see File:Map of Lycoming County Pennsylvania With Municipal and Township Labels.png, it may take a while to update how it displays here.
• Removed the row on the Garden View CDP from the table. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Added alt text to all photos and maps with captions (not sure what to do with other maps).
• Edited the image map template to remove the CDP and removed "Clickable map" test here
• Switched all "Image:" names to "File:" - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Copy edited introductory paragraphs, updated some refs, and all populations to 2020 Census in first table. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• The first table (Lycoming County's 52 municipalities) should be updated with 2020 census population AND 2023 areas (switched all to convert template, now area given in square miles to 3 decimal places, as per the US Census webpage). Added a ref for areas.
• Tweaked two paragraphs in municipalities section, - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• Added alt text per suggestion above to all locator maps in Table 1. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• In the process of adding PennDOT map references for all of the townships and the villages they contain, so that villages will be up to date and consistent. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Villages based on what is shown on PennDOT maps of each of the 42 townships have all been added, as well as refs for all maps and PennDOT's definition of a village. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• All of the townships formerly incorporated in Lycoming County in the second table have been updated for their 2020 population and 2023 area. I think it is pretty close to being done / all upgraded, but need to check all the links and look things over again. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Cleaned up references, added some refs, general cleanup. I think it is ready for another look, hopefully out of FLRC. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

List of counties in Maryland

Notified: WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject U.S. counties, nominator is long-inactive

2007 promotion, fails FLCR 3b with several citation needed tags and an unsourced section. Also fails 5c; flag and seal should not be sortable and the former counties table does not have column and row headers. Talk page concerns went unanswered. charlotte ^👸♥ 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed the table accessibility issues that you've pointed out.

Remaining problems:

1. Sourcing issues.
2. The lead map, and the flags and seal images in the table require alt text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• I would recommend in general removing the FIPS code column, which is meaningless to almost everyone and makes the table too wide for most screens. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Also there is no date for both the population and area in the heading row. Mattximus (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added a few sources – couldn't address all of the "citation needed" tags, but it's a start. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added one more source but found nothing in reliable sources regarding the defunct counties. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is close to being resolved, which is the reason I haven't delisted it yet. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't want to let this unnecessarily linger. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Still missing some critical things, like date on the population column. It's also pretty clumsily written. Consider: "The last new county formation in occurred when Garrett County was formed in 1872". This could use a copy edit to get to featured list status. Although not critical like the first two points, I don't think there should be a FIPS column as it's not useful to most people and makes the table extra wide which makes it hard on smaller devices. Mattximus (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

it's impossible to remove the fips code. The parameter is required by the template Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I have taken care of the remaining unsourced content. Would you be willing to handle some of the alt text? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have added alt text to all of the images – any help confirming that the descriptions are accurate would be great. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)