Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/July 2006

List of Virtual Boy games

Still a featured list.

Against my better judgement I promoted this list last week in the hope that the image issue would be solved by the editors involved. Still, I left a notice in the article's talk page threatening a review of this article's featured status if the images were added without consensus and an edit war occured (See Talk:List_of_Virtual_Boy_games#On_featuring_this_list. As such, I request removal in terms of criterion 3 of What is a featured list? due to the recent edit warring that lead to the protection of this page. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I protected the page, so obviously I agree that there was an edit war. I wonder about what makes sense here, though. We seem to be willing to promote lists full of unfree images as Featured Lists. What do we expect from the editors of those lists when administrators working on unfree media cleanup come by and remove all of the images that are in violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria? In many cases, that means every image. The list's editors have typically put a lot of thought and time into the layout, which was then vetted by the community, and are likely to feel quite justified in pushing back. Those involved in the cleanup are going to point out that article consensus does not trump copyright-issue policy, and may not be perfectly patient and concilliatory after having had the exact same conversation a hundred times. I suggest that it is just a little odd to have such Featured Lists only remain featured if they manage to slip under the radar of image cleanup or to expect the editors of these lists not to edit-war when suddenly all of the images are removed. Jkelly 20:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you got it a bit wrong. In this case I promoted the list without images, as I said on the talk page. A list can remain featured even without images (since having images is recommended but not required for featuring). So if other FLs have their unfree images removed, they'd remain featured nevertheless. If you read this nomination carefully, you'll see that I'm requesting defeaturing on grounds of an edit war, not the images. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't contesting this particular nomination so much as thinking aloud about the issue in general. I really have no opinion on the quality of this particular list. Jkelly 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't really see the point of removing it as a FL. Both versions of the revert war are Feature List quality and neither is "wrong" as far as information goes. I think the entire purpose of the rule is to prevent confusion from seeing one version say one thing and another version say something entirely different. As it is, both versions give the exact same information, so having a revert war doesn't compromise the veracity of the article. Plus, I have agreed to stop reverting, it's just Havok now.--SeizureDog 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Havok has to stop then. I was clear in my message when I promoted the list, so now I'm just following it through. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This entire issue would be a lot easier if the image removers would actually stick around and discuss things. This whole mess is being caused by them only coming around only to revert things. They haven't left a comment since the page got protected. --SeizureDog 22:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem which I am seeing everywhere because of a small group of peopel who have a fair strict view of our fair use policy guidelines. There is currently a similar dispute going on in List of Lost episodes. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Seizuredog --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per and concur with Seizuredog and larsinio. —Nightstallion (?) 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)