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 00:13, 9 December 2009 [1].

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: WP:MILHIST, British military history task force, myself..., User:Ranger Steve, User:Anthony Staunton

This may seem odd, but as the original developer of this list, I am nominating this for featured list removal. Simply put, it does not meet the standards for comprehensiveness (3.) or accuracy at the moment. When I developed it I used the original structure of the list that was moved over from Mike Chapman's website (see VC migration project for background) and used that basis for nationality. For a long time I have considered the issues surrounding nationality: what defines nationality, particularly given the difficulties surrounding British Empire recipients: for example a soldier could be born in India, fight for the "British Empire" within a British Indian Army unit commanded by British Army officers and then settle down somewhere else in the Empire; it gets complicated.

Discussions have started regarding how to define the nationality of recipients and how to categorise them at Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Manx_VC. Until the results of those discussions are implemented and we have a well-defined basis for these lists in terms of categorising nationalities, I don't think it should retain its status as "exemplifying Wikipedia's best work." Regards, Woody (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Woody and congratulate him on having the integrity to request that the article be delisted now problems have emerged with the sources. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure what is going on. Is this one of those procedural FLRCs, where it's already been decided that the list doesn't meet the FL criteria and this list must be delisted, or should I expect tangible improvements during this period. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More procedural. There are a number of large-scale changes needed to made that require a wider consensus to put through onto the article. Discussing how to define nationality and then instigating that will take longer than 2 weeks. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the heads up Woody. I think there is an issue with the definition of nationality currently used for these lists, which obviously has a lot to do with this list in particular. But personally I don’t want to see a featured article get delisted because of it. As the issue we need to discuss is directly related to improving this article I’d prefer to discuss and implement, and skip the delisting bit (My comment on the Manx VC discussion was more concerned with the need to discuss this soon rather than a threat to the article). That said I am obviously concerned by the duplications in this list, so if it is likely to take some time to debate the issue then perhaps FLRC is best if that is the consensus. But I’d rather use it as a impetus to come to an agreement on the matter and make the necessary changes. I’d like to think we could do it in 2 weeks (or a little bit more), but I accept we might not….. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS... doesn't help much in my hope above, but I'm afraid I'll probably be offline for the next week while I move home. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a list is actively undergoing improvements, the FLRC can be kept open for much longer than two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble at the moment is that I am extremely busy in real life and not really on Wikipedia at the moment. For me it is less about the duplication in the list, than it is about the mis-categorisation. The duplication is a by-product of that. Every recipient in this list needs to be checked against sources and against an as-yet undecided set of nationality criteria. If we can get the criteria sorted then I think this list can be worked on and kept. Woody (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the categorisation is the issue that needs sorting out (but the duplication is the most obvious by-product that causes me concern). I would prefer us to be tackling the categorisation first, and I'm happy to try and do as much as I can on it. Like Woody though, I'm going to be off-wiki for a bit, and I'm afraid I don't actually have any books on the VC.... Ranger Steve (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank Woody for the notification and support his proposal for featured list removal. I am a subject expert on the Victoria Cross with an extensive library on the subject as well as being an author of a number of books and numerous articles on the Victoria Cross. Until there is consensus as to the definition of nationally and how the information is displayed it is not appropriate for it to be a featured list. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality[edit]