Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders/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 The Rambling Man 13:14, 16 June 2009.

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders

 * ''Notified: TonyTheTiger, Cbl62, WikiProject College football and WikiProject Michigan

Per 3b, I feel this page could be merged with three other pages, which would increase the use. I proposed a merge of this list, Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders and Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders into a Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders. The merge discussion ended in a no consensus, although the majority of the commenters agreed that the proposed merged article (here) was acceptable. There are two opposers. JKBrooks85 originally disagreed, but later decided that he liked the proposed version. Cbl62 opposed largely on length concerns and the loss of content, but I feel that the merged version's length of 45000 is very acceptable, and it cuts out the leads which were basically recreations of eachother. I'd be interested to see what his opinion of it is. TonyTheTiger's oppose is based around tables, but I think they could be cut down. Several users did state that the merged version was a net improvement, and it would also allow for other stats to be included. -- Scorpion 0422  15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I continue to be opposed because I have never seen as many tables in one list as the proposed merged list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that a bad thing? -- Scorpion 0422  16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It just seems unusual. I don't analyze a lot of lists so I might be wrong on this. I had not noticed the navigation template, which seems to have been added at some point and is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it either way. My oppose was made prior to seeing the combined lit, and I have to admit that the navigation tool built into the combined list is pretty good. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge (so I guess that's delist?) - I think they should be merged, any list under 60k is fine and these three fit together very naturally - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI (and to avoid confusion), FLRC only decides the featured status of FLs, not whether they should be merged or not post-FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist The merged version looks great to me. This list right now has insufficient information to be featured. Plus, there are many red links in here, as well.--Crzycheetah 02:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist "Too many tables" doesn't seem to be a good enough reason not to merge. In any case (if the merge goes forward or not), this fails 3b, specifically "[The list] ... could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I am understanding this discussion correctly, the debate is about the current FL and not the proposed joint merged list. Is this debate only about this single list or all three that were being considered for merger.  I ask because if only this one is listed, I am not sure what the post-FLRC result action should be.  If all three are up for delist, then I presume the question is whether the proposed merged list is eligible to be nominated.  I am just not sure what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just this one. It's a test case. All three would have to be nominated seperately, so I nominated just one to see how things go. -- Scorpion 0422  19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist – Could be logically merged into a larger list, so it probably fails 3b.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - for process reasons and larger questions raised by this nomination. I'm worried that there is a conflict developing between the larger groups of editors who have made editorial decisions to create separate lists on various topics and the decisions related to 3b. In this case in particular, I think the merger issue should have been resolved before this was nominated for FLRC (although I do believe that this specific merger is a good idea). But there are larger issues. Beyond the issues I've raised in the past about exactly where and when 3b applies and the slippery slope I fear we are heading down, what we are in effect confronting is a larger question of Wikipedia policy for the creation of lists. Forgive me, because I wasn't here for the discussion where 3b was created, but could someone answer these questions for me?
 * Was there a debate on the applicable MOS pages with larger input from the wikipedia community regarding modification of the WIAFL criteria, since 3b is having implications now beyond the judging of lists and is in effect creating policy regarding the merging or independence of stand alone lists?
 * Is the intent of 3b to apply pressure across wikipedia to merge lists into each other and into articles? If so, I think there are questions as to whether the FLC and FLRC is the proper place to create editing policy.'

Geraldk (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is only to determine whether this list meets FL criteria or not. We are not saying that this has to be merged, only that it would be reasonable to do so. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that. My concern is that FLC and FLRC not be used to force editing and policy decisions on the larger community. I understand this nomination was made in good faith, but I think there's a rush to judgement about a lot of lists on FLC and FLRC without answering some pretty fundamental questions about what exactly 3b means for lists in general. 3b is still ill-defined and utterly subjective. In this case, this list is well done according to other parts of WIAFL, it's just a question of whether the topic of 'passing leaders' is enough of a separate topic from 'statistical leaders' to warrant an independent list. You are in effect saying that this list has to be merged or it does not meet Wikipedia's highest standards, which for editors who want their content to meet high standards will force the question of the merger. Meanwhile, there is no consensus in the merger discussion about whether a merged list would be too long (I can see both sides on that one). It is troubling to me that this question would be raised here after the proposal for a merger effectively failed with no consensus. Geraldk (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that FLRC is no substitute for a merger or afd discussion, and I did start a merger discussion before coming here. It was basically a weak no consensus (2 opposed a merge, but the rest did seem to support it) and it appeared to be going nowhere despite my attempts to restart it. This FLRC, while perhaps a tad hasty, was done because I felt there was enough support for a merge (and, indeed, one of the previous opposers has stated that he would be fine either way) and a FLRC was the next step. I do agree fully with you, however, that I do not want FLRC to go in the direction of being any kind method to force a merge, and I would be willing to withdraw this and pursue a merge discussion, if you wish. -- Scorpion 0422  15:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, process question. If an existing FL is to be merged, do we have guidelines that say whether it should be de-listed before the merger, or if the merger decision should be made before it is delisted? Geraldk (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be either/or really. If it's a non-controversial merger, then it could be delisted first, then a discussion could be held. However, in most cases, a merge discussion should be held first. -- Scorpion 0422  17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not trying to be a jerk here, but it would seem to make sense to me that there should be consensus on the merger first before this. Aside from tge process concern, given the current ambiguity in 3b, while I understand the argument that this could be merged, I don't necessarily that could = should = delisting. This is not a list of five awards received by a band. It's a significantly large list of statistics. It's not, I think, a clear-cut case. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the 3b issue, I notice Cr. 1 niggles: "single–game, single–season" (should be hyphens) ... "The Michigan football program has won more conference championships than any football program in any football conference." is filled with redundancy, why not "Michigan has won more football conference championships than any other program." ... Repetitive and awkward wording at the end of the first paragraph about rivalries ... I see linked dates in the references; not sure why we need them like that ... newspapers should be italicized (The Daily Orange) ... This image caption is unclear: "Chad Henne is Lloyd Carr's last starting quarterback." Last, or most recent? I'm inclined to go with the latter. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delist. A few minutes ago I supported the merge and was oblivious to the FLRC. Looking at this list now, I don't think trophiesandawards.wordpress.com is a reliable source. Also considering the three lists together the second and third paragraphs are all recreations of each other. I see this as a kind of WP:CFORK, and think all three should be delisted, then merged then have a fresh FLC for the new list. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.