Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/109th United States Congress/archive1

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 Dabomb87 00:35, 11 January 2011 [1].

109th United States Congress edit

Featured list removal candidates/109th United States Congress/archive1

Notified: Markles, WikiProject U.S. Congress

First, this is not exactly a list. While it has a list of Senators, a list of Representatives, a list of legislation, etc. within the article, it is not a "List of" anything as a whole. Therefore, even if other problems are fixed, this would be better off at GA or FA. Next, I feel that the article is lacking information. Surely a two-year period of American politics would have more major events, or the ones mentioned could be elaborated on. More than one hearing was held, and the article in general could be more informative. The main problem is sourcing. There are some references, but the article completely lacks links citing other facts, the party summary, leadership, members, and employees. I'm sure this article can be greatly improved, but I don't see it as a list. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - It is a list of several items, and contains info and links necessary to access the articles on Senators, Representatives, Legislation etc. All these have their own articles, and in this one it should not be elaborated upon, exactly avoiding to create a monstrous catch-all. Kraxler (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care - "Featured" File or List is an ego-boosting process, as it was for me when I nominated this article. But now I don't need that kind of personal affirmation. At the time, by the way, I thought it was an "article." When I nominated it (like the 110th), it was as an article and I was told "No, it's a list." I said, "fine then nominate it as a list." I think it passed then. But frankly, if the article is Featured, GA, A or C, it's all the same to me. It doesn't matter to the article so you can delist it or not. It doesn't change anything if it's "Featured" or not. —Markles 01:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nominator. --TIAYN (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - There's a lack of citations. The lead doesn't adequately describe the article. The Major events section could be greatly expanded upon. I'm sure also that parts of the article could be formatted better. Afro (Talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist a shame Markles etc think this is a badge-winning exercise. The mature outlook is to produce excellent lists, of which this is not one. It's not about recognition, it's about promoting Wikipedia. When editors start throwing toys and claiming this about anything other than ensuring excellent content, it's a great pity. This is not a featured list, Afro hits the major problems, if no-one is willing to help then that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, The Rambling Man. The "Featured" process does encourage editors to improve articles. Perhaps that justifies the "badge-winning" part of it, anyway. I was hasty and I apologize.—Markles 02:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree to certain things mentioned above, although I have no opinion at all on the delist-question:
- Lists should not need too amny citations, the sources and references are on the listed subjects' articles. Only controversial content should be footnoted.
  - Please see nearly every other FL. While I think citations can get excessive, this has nowhere near enough. That is not how Wikipedia works; FLs should be able to stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Major events section could be greatly expanded upon??? What do you mean? Add descriptions, duplicating content that should be read elsewhere (on the event's article page), or add events, including minor events and minute events and minuscule events, and non-events?

It could be more descriptive regarding the events which took place "Prominent events included the filibuster "nuclear option" scare", could be explained as to what this scare was for example, the whole section doesn't seem encyclopedic. Afro (Talk) 15:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a list, then isn't it sufficient? You want it more descriptive, but is that really necessary for an article? I guess that brings me to the meta-question: Is it a list or an article?—Markles 15:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Featured Lists do not just have name, name, name, name or event, event, event, event; they often include more detailed information about the subjects. And that brings me to why I nominated this: It's an article with numerous sublists. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a layout more like the one shown on 111th United States Congress to keep it as a list. Afro (Talk) 18:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Please, Markles, do not apologize. You might have been hasty, perhaps even wrong, but no harm was done. Kraxler (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The apology was welcome. There was no need at all to disparage the good faith efforts of this project. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not oppose the nomination, back in 2007, Rambling Man? It was supported unopposed then. No, Markles, there is absolutely nothing to apologize for. And by the way, all the "Nth Congress" and connected lists/articles are still full of doubtful info, which I'm trying to improve. It will take years, and if anybody handed me a badge, unopposed, I would take it without hesitation, although I never nominated any of my articles for anything. I propose to delist now, and to archive this, finishing a fruitless and unhelpful debate. Kraxler (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your argument at all. Standards have changed dramatically since 2007, and I appreciated Markles' apology for disparaging this entire project. Once again, this is not about "badges" as you seem to be obsessed with, it's about preserving the highest possible standard for Wikipedia's featured content. Simple as that. The debate actually is helpful as it keeps our featured content excellent. And it would be more "fruitful" if people acted to improve the article rather than complaining about the system. Thanks for your contributions to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obsessed with badges, as I said above. I do not think that Markles disparaged your precious project. He was given the badge a long time ago, and has now grown up sufficiently to state his opinion that the article will be the same with or without the star. Which is absolutely correct. Besides, "featured content" is certainly less than 1% of Wikipedia, I'm concerned about the other 99%, improving hundreds (who knows, thousands..) of articles over the years. IMO, that is what promotes Wikipedia: that users can look up anything, and get good and reliable info. Most users/readers don't even know what is a "featured article". And by the way, I'm not complaining about anything, I'm fine. Kraxler (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my precious project", it's Wikipedia's project to ensure excellence across lists. His apology was welcome. I'm glad you're concerned with the rest of the unfeatured part of Wikipedia, aren't we all? But in any case, this discourse is pointless, as it certainly isn't leading to improving the list, so I guess it's best we both disengage. Happy new year. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Kraxler (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist it is a list, but it is neither a very appealing, easy to read, nor well reverenced one. Nergaal (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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