Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of premiers of Saskatchewan/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 Sephiroth BCR 23:11, 28 April 2009.

List of premiers of Saskatchewan

 * Notified: Royalguard11, Arctic.gnome, WP Canada, WP Governments of Canada, WP Political parties and politicians in Canada, WP Saskatchewan

Per 3b "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreation of material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." If I'm reading this correctly, then this could reasonably included in Premier of Saskatchewan, which is currently a very short stub. Cool3 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick background to prevent misunderstanding of other users: Criterion 3b was added as part of a series of changes made after a two-week period of discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist and Merge The main article is a stub. There is no reason that they can't be merged. With a stub like that, it's nothing more that a content fork. iMatthew : Chat  13:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - agreed with the nom. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per criterion 3b, and the fact that there are no inline citations. – Juliancolton  | Talk 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per criterion 3b. Verifiability is another issue, but the general references cover quite a bit. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even though its parent article is currently a stub, I think that merging would be a mistake because as it currently stands almost all of the list of Canadian premiers are standardized and featured, which is useful for both navigational purposes and for a featured topic that was planed and will still likely happen before long.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the lack of citations is concerning but I do not think the stubyness of Premier of Saskatchewan is an argument in favour of merging. Premier of Saskatchewan is capable of being a fully formed article of length long enough to merit two separate articles (that one and this one), and I think that that that article's deficiency should not impact on the independence of this article. Rather, the potential for Premier of Saskatchewan to become a long enough article should mean the two get to stay independent. So oppose merge - rst20xx (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking this over again, Arctic Gnome makes a nice point. I'm unsure of how much Premier of Saskatchewan can be expanded, but I think it might be better to standardize the different types of articles for easier access for readers' benefits. List of premiers of British Columbia and Premier of British Columbia probably won't even have to be merged, as the articles are just too long already. However, even with that I am unsure of whether I can support the article. The FLC was over two years ago, and so some things have come up that need to be fixed:
 * Lead expansion: There should not be any two line paragraphs in the lead.
 * Split the "Period" section into "first day in office" and "final day in office", or something alone those lines.
 * What "Elections (Riding)" are has to be explained.
 * Images should be found for all of these people; the table just does not look good without them.
 * The "Assemblies" column should be expanded so that "Assemblies" can be on one line instead of being split to two.


 * Comments from the FLRC director
 * This is what I feared might happen, and is exactly why I want discussions pertaining to 3b violations to take place on the article's talk page before the actual FLRC. Some material that can be merged shouldn't be merged simply for the sake of merging. Personally, I think the main article still has a lot of room for expansion, so like I said earlier, this FLRC is fairly premature. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite sorry about that. However, I think the issue of a lack of inline citations and some style issues raised above still stand either way.  Cool3 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm leading toward keeping this as a stand-alone list, but there are still issues. No time for a full review, but FLs no longer start out as "This is a list of..." The lead needs at least a couple inline citations, and the lead does not summarize the list at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no comment as to whether this is a featured list or not as it's not my area of experience (maybe I voted for it the first time, I don't remember). As for the second part, I must say that it's quite a coup you have going on here, skipping the whole merger discussion that traditionally happen on the talk page and transferring to a discussion that is not even linked from the page itself. How many lists have you been merged without notice on a talk page the page itself? This is the first I have heard of this and I must say that as an admin I'm quite ashamed that transparency is being sacrificed in the name of, well whatever being gained here. I've left notices on both the Canadian Wikipedians' Notice Board and the article talk page to make sure that people know what's going on (not canvassing, just making sure that this is being kept transparent which the nominator seems to have tried to avoid). -Royalguard11 (T) 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment first off, this is not the place for a merge discussion, so I would leave that out entirely. Second, I don't think the fact that Premier of Saskatchewan is in need of major expansion is a valid reason for delisting this article.  I think both the list and the article can be expanded, so I am not satisfied that this list meets the new content fork aspect of 3b.  However, this list does fail current standards due to its poor quality lead and lack of inline citations.  This list met the criteria as of about 3 revisions ago when it was promoted though.  Also, as per other recent FLRCs, I would reiterate that I am always disappointed when people rush off ot FLRC right away rather than engage in discussions on concerns.  Opportunity to improve an article should always preceed a removal candidacy, imo, and frankly that should be made a requirement of even starting a FxRC nom. Resolute 04:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist -- Not on the basis of 3b, the main article can be fairly expanded, and like President of the United States, it can warrant a new list. But I do suggest rewording the intro sentence, and expanding the list a bit more to give background on the premiers and a summary of the list itself. I also suggest expanding the width of the table and making a key to explain some of the things in the table like what the three dots means "...", what (Riding) means, the period entries should have emdashes. The list also needs more in-line citations and the references should be made into general and specific.-- T ru  c o   02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think this page quite meets 3b. Although the parent article is rather short, it is a very notable topic that could be expanded quite a bit. The list itself also has individual notability, so I think it's okay on the basis of 3b. -- Scorpion 0422  19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: All Canadian provinces and territories need to be treated in the same way. Either they all have an article on the position and a separate list of its occupants, or they all have a single merged article-plus-list. Saskatchewan can't be singled out as an isolated exception to a standard and comprehensive format. So in the absence of a consensus to merge all of the Canadian provincial and territorial premier lists into the position articles, this one isn't mergeable in isolation — either they all get merged or none do, absolutely nothing in between. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.