Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/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 kept by Giants2008 01:37, 10 June 2013‎ [1].

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain[edit]

Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1

Notified: Resident Mario, Wikiproject Hawai'i

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is missing entries that are obvious even to the casual tourist - two examples that come to mind are Diamond Head, Hawaii and Molokini. It also had a large amount of article content, which I moved to the article Hawaiian–Emperor seamount chain and for which I received a very uncivil response. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A spiteful nomination in poor faith demonstrative of much of the reason why I am no longer active on this project. Instead of making helpful suggestions regarding content and bringing up issues to me personally or WP:HAWAII communally you butchered the lead of a standing FL and on my disgusted reversion decide that what is supposed to be the last-ditch venue, the FLR, is your first port of call. Fine. On your head be it. When this circus is done I will wash my hands of the project once and for all and retire in a more permanent manner. ResMar 02:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea this was considered a last-ditch forum. I was also not aware it was a featured list when I first edited it. I suspect that the reason you semi-retired is because you were not capable of behaving towards others in a civil fashion. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what appalls me more, that you find making major deletions to a standing FL without consultation perfectly ok, that you somehow fail to notice the status of an article before editing it, or that you think delistment procedures are an appropriate first response to reversion. ResMar 04:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hit the brakes. My main issue with this is the obvious missing entries as noted above. I would not have nominated this on the introduction dispute if that was the only problem. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note: Wikipedian content coverage of hotspots and hotspot chains has always bothered me, but never enough for me to bring it to community referendum. Since one has been forced upon me here, let me explain my reasoning regarding how the content is divied up, since the delightful nominator would like to rip off pieces of the list and insert them elsewhere.

As of right now there are three articles that together roughly cover the chain, as well as an article for every major known and named volcano in the chain (many of which I either created or heavily improved in my time here). Before I came along there were two stubby articles on the matter: one on the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, and one on the Hawaii hotspot, on the hotspot that created it. I initially became involved with Hawaiian volcano articles through my work on Loihi; I found the work interesting enough that I started working on related articles, too, and formed a goal sheet of sorts with the hopes of eventually bringing this particular area of Wikipedia to WP:FT. In forming that workgroup (really just an organizational page for myself, since outside contributions have been relatively minimal) I submitted a proofing check regarding what the lead article should be to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions (twice, actually: here is the more recent check). The proper lead article for such an effort would ordinarily be something along the lines of "Volcanology of Hawaii", but Hawaii is not Canada, Iceland, or New Zealand; it is a small island whose unique volcanic characteristics are the result not of sub-surface subduction zones but of a single hotspot (I also thought it was inappropriate without a "Volcanology of the United States" header article, and there was simply no way I would be doing that). For this reason I argued that "Hawaii hotspot" was an appropriate header article for the topic, and my argument was accepted.

The conflict thus resolved, I put a huge amount of effort into improving the article, which proved an incalculable headache. As part of the article I created a list of volcanoes in the chain using this SOEST list as a base. By this point the article had gotten so long as to be unwieldy, so by suggestion I moved that list to its own page - what is presently List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain, the article under duress by the nominator in this FLR. In doing all this I was willfully ignoring "Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain" based on my own thoughts regarding content structure and on the advice of others. The fact of the matter is that the chain is the byproduct of the hotspot, its creator and continual contributor. And it is impossible to discuss the hotspot without the chain, and vice versa. I didn't really want to deal with it so I was content to leave "Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain" alone and concentrate my efforts on what I saw and what was foretold as the master article of the topic, and until the nominator came along I never had any trouble, at least in that regard.

So I guess the question is, what am I suggesting? I don't really know. So far it's always been handled on a case by case basis with no real discernible pattern or standard and a lot of overlap between articles. But I certainly don't want to see so many hours of labor torn apart in the process. Article possession? Damn straight; I am not terribly keen to see many dozens of hours of work torn asunder, especially after I went to lengths to make sure it was appropriate. Somehow, this issue never came up before - never in the nominations, never in the peer revisions, and never in the discussions (and there's been many of them; the list and the hotspot have each been through three FACs; I'm no good with bronze stars, clearly). ResMar 16:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I've noticed some disorganization in this set of articles as well, particularly when you add Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes to this. I don't see a problem with having articles on both the hotspot and the resulting range - after all, it wouldn't be the only one. But don't feel that your hours of work has been torn asunder, because it hasn't, I simply moved it, making the article many times better than it was before. If the lead is kept as is, then your work has now drastically improved two pages instead of one - if the lead winds up being shortened, then you've still drastically improved one. I'm surprised that no one brought up the large amount of article content (especially when the article was so weak at the time) in the previous reviews, though. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & the lead restored - This was a perfectly good list before the nominator removed most of the lead section without discussion. It seems to me that the nominator fails to notice FL criteria 2 which says a FL needs to have an "engaging lead that introduces the subject". Maybe the lead overlaps with the content of Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain which seems to be quite short, but that doesn't mean the lead should be removed this way. As for the missing entries, it seems to be a problem at first (FL criteria 3), but it is not after I took a serious look. I think the confusion is simply due to the fact that volcano ranges are included in the list instead of individual volcanos. For example, Diamond Head is part of the Koʻolau Range, which is actually included. I am not a geologist, so I don't know if that arrangement is appropriate. Maybe the scope of the list should be refined in order to prevent the confusion?—Chris!_c/t 23:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An engaging lead is one thing - an entire article's worth is another. It sounds like we maybe should aim for something in-between the very long lead that was there before and the short one there now, perhaps? As far as volcanos versus ranges, this at the very least needs to be clarified, and whichever approach is taken, these high-profile craters must be included somehow. Most of the readers of this have no idea that Ko'olau and Diamond Head have anything to do with each other, and they don't appear related when looking at a terrain map. If a specific crater is named and is known, it should be here, even if part of a larger range. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing on how the lead is written is fine, but that doesn't mean the you should remove the content of an FL unilaterally. I didn't see any attempt from you to even discuss your concerns beforehand. And I can see why the writer is frustrated. As far as i can see, your concerns are merely content disputes and should be dealt with on the talk page. My suggestion would be to restore the lead first and then discuss how to improve it. No opinion on the missing entries, but those can easily be included if necessary.—Chris!_c/t 21:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to expect that someone always discuss major changes on certain articles before doing it. Be Bold does not exclude any categories of articles. Besides, I expect that few editors verify an article's status before making edits, even large ones. The symbol that indicates a featured list/article is very tiny and there is nothing about a little star that obviously indicates featured status to someone not already familiar with the process. Also, the content was not deleted, it was moved. It just blows me away how many editors don't understand this distinction. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what part of the featured list criteria this fails, that hasn't been made obvious in the nomination. Nor do I see list of errors that need to be fixed. In such conditions, the default position must be to keep the status quo. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "3a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." - Thus, missing Diamond Head, Molokini, no mention that the number of volcanos that created Kaua'i is subject to dispute - this makes me wonder what else is missing that I don't know about. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So note the errors, they can then be fixed. You can't prove a negative ("this makes me wonder what else is missing that I don't know about")... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The reason I strongly suspect that big items are missing is that the two I mentioned above will be obvious even to a tourist who has done no research on volcanos or Hawai'i whatsoever. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That wasn't what I asked, I asked, "note the errors", and I also suggested you couldn't prove a negative. Unless you have something substantial that violates the criteria, I'd suggest this is a waste of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & the lead restored Per the keeps above. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & the lead restored The lead is well written, the alternative of a single sentence lead does injustice to the article. A list article is still an article and not a table data dump. Many lists on Wikipedia do indeed have a one sentence lead, but that does not mean that is the desirable situation, rather a sign that Wikipedia is incomplete. CRwikiCA talk 18:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator is unfamiliar with definitions of "lists" and "articles" as used on Wikipedia. This is clearly a list, and the lead is actually of fairly moderate length. I've passed an FL with 5k of text in the lead (person had a long career), and 3.5k is appropriate for a highly active volcanic zone. The question of whether the list is complete or not, or whether individual mounts should be listed or just ranges, is one best left for the article talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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