Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Question

If you are not promoted the first time, is possible that you can try again?--Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as you feel that you ahve addressed all of the concerns brought up in the FLC. -- Scorpion0422 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't be here

The lease on our apartment is up at the end of this month so tomorrow we're moving house. I definitely won't be around this weekend to do closures, and it might be a couple of weeks before AT&T get around to sending our modem and turning on our DSL line. This will be one of my last edits until I return. See you all later, Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good thing Scorpion and TRM are active again. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
If only it were that easy... I'm going away tomorrow and will not be back until September 1. Hopefully TRM can take over things while Matty and I are away. -- Scorpion0422 00:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
TRM has done FLC closures. I'll do FLRC closures later today. iMatthew talk at 14:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Set up WP:FLC similiar to WP:SPI

Resolved

This page is very long (I know, it's been longer), but while trying to scroll around on any FLC with a lot of comments, I find it hard to scroll without traveling into a different FLC by mistake. I think the page would benefit from putting each transluded FLC into a show/hide box. It would make it easier for reviewers to navigate the page. What do you think? iMatthew talk at 14:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That could work, but won't the mass templates slow down page load time even further?--Truco 503 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it would likely speed it up. See {{SPI}} for how it'd work. iMatthew talk at 15:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Opposed to this. If you want to see a FLC-link-only page, use WP:FLCL. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Why are you opposed to it? The main FLC page is very long, and I'd like a show/hide page, so that one easy click can show the FLC, then one easy click can close it and you move on to the next page. iMatthew talk at 15:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah I see what you mean now (Matt), but I think Dabomb makes a point. However, I think WP:FLC should have a link to that WP:FLCL.--Truco 503 15:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No offense to Dabomb, but is the point that the other page exists? If so, that's not what I'm looking for (as explained in my last comment). iMatthew talk at 15:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd strongly oppose this (and totally oppose it if you try to export it to FAC itself). People come to SPI looking for specific cases; at FAC/FLC/FPC/GAC/RFA and all the rest of the alphabet soup this could be applied to, most readers are "skimming" the list looking for things that catch their eye. All hiding the entries would accomplish would be to reduce the number of "outside" commenters—that is, those who haven't been directed here from a talkpage discussion somewhere—still further. – iridescent 16:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(→) I strongly oppose, as well. IF we do that, we'll lose even more reviewers and nominators. The discussions at FLC is a lot more interesting and educational, than discussions at SPI.--Cheetah (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

1500 FLs!

After the promotions and delistings of today, we now have 1500 Featured lists. Thanks to everyone—nominators, reviewers and other helpful editors—who have made this possible. Let's keep up the good work. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We should all pat ourselves on the back. Should we start a pool as to when we will reach 3000? Mm40 (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We just scraped it since two were demoted so it's exactly 1,500. Awesome stuff. More lists, more reviewers but as Dabomb87 says, brilliant to get us to this point so far! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this achievement being reported somewhere such as in 'Wikipedia Signpost' etc? We will also soon reach 2000 FPs. - DSachan (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on a possible candidate

Like I've done with the Guitar Hero lists, I would like to start moving the similar lists for Rock Band up to featured. The individual games, no problem, but we have a downloadable content list that has 800 entries ( and continues to grow), and due to the size issues, it has been split across 4 different articles: one that is a single complete list that transcludes the core data from 3 other lists (and 4 when we get to 2010, etc.) Effectively, I consider it 1 list though it spans 4 pages.

Have we had a situation like this before, and if so, how was it handled? If not, I would like to suggest that if I were to nominate the list, consider the main complete list to be the "core" one but make sure the transcluded ones are confirmed at the same time. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before (with TV series episode lists), and some people don't like having transcluded lists onto the main list because the system is non-intuitive to IP and newly registered editors who want to edit them (the setlists). Dabomb87 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Lists!

I would like to get these up to FL Status like the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions has been made into. Don Lope has made them virtually the same, which makes me advocate for them to be nominated together List of US Open Men's Singles champions, List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions, and List of French Open Men's Singles champions to get the same attention in a quick fashion like the Wimbledon one did. I don't know how to go about this process, which is why I am asking for help, PLEASE! THANKS IN ADVANCE!TW-RF (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend nominating one article at a time because of reviewer capacity. If you need help in starting an FLC, that can be done by an FL regular. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I should be able to help check them. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Me too, but per Dabomb87, let's do them one at a time. That way any common issues can be resolved before nominating the last two lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep agree. We'll Just nominate one to start with. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Let's Go ONE at a time, and we will eventually get them done in due course! I will let you all choose which one we take on first, second, and third, Thanks You All...98.240.44.215 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
List of US Open Men's Singles champions could perhaps be nominated? Aaroncrick (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am tired of talking on this lets get this nominated and done! Let's chug them up so we can chug down this three lists and get them finished!98.240.44.215 (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The US list is nominated and it's on you now. Go and take care of it here. You can switch my name to yours.--Cheetah (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bold article/list titles in the lead sentence

See a discussion on whether the relevant guideline is so ignored, particularly by FLs, that it ought to be changed that's underway here at FAC and here at MOS. BencherliteTalk 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we all knew this was coming

I have decided to retire as FL director. I will still edit wikipedia (although nowhere near as much as I once did) and I'll still help out the process where I can. We've all known this was likely coming, so it's not much of a surprise, and I haven't done much FLC-related things since June, so it won't have a lot of effect. I have considered sticking it out until a time when I might be more active (next May?) but I noticed during August we were having a problem with TRM, myself and Matty all being away and nothing could really be done because we had three directors. With two, perhaps another one could be appointed. Also, since I wouldn`t do much, it would just be me holding onto power.

Warning: The following is the obligatory and somewhat rambling retrospective. Reader discretion is advised.

I first discovered the FL process back in December 2006. As soon as I did, I rushed to nominate a list that had few/no reliable sources and needed work. Yes, I was a noob. Not long after, I also closed and promoted my first FLC, which also happened to be the first one I nominated. Needless to say, I was soon reverted. Over the next few months, I improved much as an editor, and finally successfully nominated List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame. In April 2007, I successfully nominated List of WWE Champions. This began a streak of at least one successful nomination each month, a streak that still exists (but will likely end soon. It really doesn't mean much, and I know some users are against things like that or WP:WBFLN, but I think that if it helps motivate someone, then great.).

I did a few quick closures during the Spring, before starting regularily do it in August, and I soon became the de facto director. In April 2008, there was a push for a director to be appointed, and I was hesitant to step up. It was partially because I didn't want to commit to something like that, but also because I never considered myself the best user for the job: I'm not a fantastic reviewer (never really having had the patience for it), not level-headed, short-tempered and occasionally uncivil, not great at justifying my actions, and I'm usually to the point and curt. And yet, for some reason, I became the favourite as several users pushed for me. Perhaps my proudest wikipedia moment is when I won the director "election" and in the process had more votes than three fantastic and well-respected editors: The Rambling Man, Dweller and Matthewedwards.

Not only was I elected, but I seemed to be doing a good job because I've never had anyone question my position, and only rarely has anyone complained about one of my closures. Looking back, I wish someone had, because I think I eventually got, for lack of a better word, lazy and started closing FLCs without doing reviews of them. This, of course, eventually led to my rambling essay about the process, and led to an overhaul of the criteria, a rejuvenated FLRC, and, I hope, an overall improval in the process. There were times when I started to let others become the main closer, but I have always enjoyed being director and I hope that perhaps one day I can try the position again.

Warning: The following is a somewhat rambling list of thank yous. Reader discretion is advised.

So, I'd like to thank everyone who has put up with me as director, and helped keep the process running. In particular:

So thanks for putting up with me, and I hope that FLC continues to grow and strengthen and remain the great process it has always been. -- Scorpion0422 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Scorpion, for all the time and effort you've put into this place. You will be sorely missed around here. I hope one day you can return, and we'll kick Matty out like you always wanted to actually do! =] iMatthew talk at 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. You were a great asset to the FL process (both as a nominator and a director), and I hope to see you back here as soon as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with Matty and Dabomb, though I don't know what Matty meant when he said "I hope one day you can return, and we'll kick Matty out like you always wanted to actually do!". Thanks for rejuvenating the FLC process day by day, and for being my favorite director! We will surely miss your activeness! Dabomb87 for director? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No need really; we still have two directors. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Kicking Matty out as a director is a running joke with Scorpion and Matty. And Dabomb87 would make a good director, but he's needed as a reviewer more than as a director. Also like he said, we should be fine with the two we have. :) iMatthew talk at 02:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all, it would be my pleasure to replace Matthewedwards some day. -- Scorpion0422 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should kick out Edwards and Rambler.... Scorpion, you are already missed. Please drive by whenever you can, your contributions are invaluable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Scorpion for those kind words, you will be truly missed. You were the first to teach me about the FLC process with my 2007 WWE Draft list (even though we butted heads at the FLC), since then I have learned and you were an excellent person to learn from. Much like yourself, I'm also not able to edit or review as much which I know is hurting the process (and I truly apologize). --Truco 503 00:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Scorpion, you made a lot of positive changes (granted, you had our help) to the process, such as the FL stats, FL contests, the unwritten 10-item rule, the revamp of the criteria etc. You were the perfect director!... because you cared about the project, yet you were a lousy reviewer, so there were no COI problems. Needless to say, so I'll type: Thank you, Scorpion0422!--Cheetah (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Scorp, you did a great job as director and everyone here will miss you. Thanks for all of your hard work at FLC, which will always have a place for you if you want to come back. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election!

Hi all. We're going to be holding an election to determine a new FLRC delegate. If you wish to become a delegate, add your nomination by Monday, September 14th at 23:59 (UTC). Voting starts on Tuesday and ends on Saturday. Further information/instructions are on the page. iMatthew talk at 18:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting is now open! iMatthew talk at 00:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New-look Manual of Style launched

Dear nominators and reviewers: a few weeks ago there was extensive discussion on FAC talk about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style, which concerns the FLC process through the operation of its criteria. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:

  • it is often wordy;
  • it provides more examples than necessary;
  • it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
  • it is a little repetitive and disorganised.

As a service to nominators, reviewers and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:

  1. brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
  2. new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
  3. the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
  4. the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including Blason;
  5. the addition of a Currency section, summarised from MOSNUM.
  6. improvements in structural organisation;
  7. the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.

Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified here, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page.Tony (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, but inevitably moving on...

So, Scorpion is hanging up his gloves, Sephiroth BCR has been off-wiki since 22 June, and User:Matthewedwards is moving house and doesn't have internet access. So, for all of WP:FLC and WP:FLRC, that leaves me, and User:iMatthew, to take care of everything. And in for FLC I'm considered a "delegate" and for FLRC, iMatthew is considered similarly. Either we get more brains on-board or we accept what we have and move "delegate" to "director". Or perhaps someone else has a fabulous idea to help with this dilemma...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of "official" titles, I believe you should be moved up to "director" along with Matthewedwards. Being that you're now an official FLC director again, I'll gladly move in as FLRC's delegate instead of "deputy." :P - But I think for now we can accept what we have and move on. We were OK all summer while Scorpion was inactive, so it shouldn't be a problem. iMatthew talk at 19:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The only thing is that if you and Matty are both away at the same time, would I be trusted to close FLCs? iMatthew talk at 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Then again, it wouldn't hurt to hold a small election on who could help me out at FLRC, as I can't guarantee I'll be around EVERY time they need closures. So, scratch the above, a small election might help us find a new delegate for FLRC. I think it's time we remove Sephiroth, as he's not active. When/if he returns, we can of course explain why he was removed and offer his spot back if he wants. iMatthew talk at 20:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my opinion is that TRM becomes co-director with Matty. This seems a no-brainer and even though it's only really a "title" change, in the nicest possible way, he looks like a duck! Now hopefully TRM doesn't have any immediate plans to nominate lots of lists before Matty gets back, so hopefully FLC will be just fine. As for FLRC, it's not such a problem because of the much lower volume. I don't know if FLC directors usually do any FLRC closures, but if not I'd support iMatthew here and if he wants a delegate to help when he's away then I think Dabomb would be great – I know people don't want to pull him away from the reviewing but, seeing is as it is a very small amount of closures I'm talking about, it seems sensible to have someone who can just jump in and do it if needed. Dabomb has plenty of experience in closing, having done the process before for withdrawals and having stalked assisted in remedying any mistakes our esteemed directors/delegates make. Finally I'd like to echo all those above in thanking Scorpion who has done a fantastic job for this featured process. You'll be missed around these parts. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Without disrespect to our other reviewers, Dabomb is, as he suggests, the bomb. I would love for him to be the FLC king but his reviews are virtually (!) faultless, so, as such, I vote eight times over for him to remain as a reviewer (and this is without consulting him... )
I'm happy to be reinstated as my role at FLC director, and continue as a FLRC director/delegate/deputy/whatever/nothing. Suggestions welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think TRM should be a director, but the difference between a director and delegate at FLC is nonexistent, so there's no use in continuing that line of discussion. I should also add that my time for FLC and Wiki in general has dipped drastically, and I don't review as frequently as I once did. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
One major problem I have is that TRM and Matty are both very good reviewers, but neither can review because of COI. Now Dabomb is decreasing his activity, we're almost done for. iMatthew talk at 22:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: I can still review most, if not all, FLC nominations, but will not be as prompt in posting them. Most of this is because of a mounting real-life workload, but I will readily admit that other fruitless pursuits are sapping my time, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

When TRM was first confirmed as a "delegate", we all knew that there would be the likelyhood he would eventually be "promoted" and I made sure everyone knew that. As such, I see no reason why we can't just move him to being a director right now. -- Scorpion0422 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But what about FLRC? Even if TRM helps out there too occasionally, it'd be nice to go back to having four people around to do closures. iMatthew talk at 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Matthewedwards will be back soon enough (probably sooner than it would take to appoint a couple new delegates). Does anyone object to iMatthew becoming a full FLRC delegate? Also, is anyone interested in becoming a deputy, at least until we know if Sephiroth is coming back? -- Scorpion0422 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and simplified the hierarchy, since there is no discernible difference between deputy, delegate and director. FLRC doesn't need more delegates; it doesn't receive enough traffic to warrant more. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you're right it doesn't need more, but having someone around as a backup would be nice. Say Matthewedwards and TRM both suddenly wound up having to go away for a month (just an example), it would be nice to have another pair of hands available to help out in these situations (which seem to happen often around here). iMatthew talk at 23:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with iMatthew. The level of traffic is manageable, but it never hurts to have another user in case of any unforseen situations. -- Scorpion0422 00:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to remove Sephiroth's name from the FLRC due to his inactivity and add an active editor in his place temporary. So, we will have two active directors at FLC and 2 active delegates at FLRC. If Sephiroth does come back in the next month or so, he can retain his place, if not, then the new delegate will become a permanent delegate. With all due respect to iMatthew, I don't want him to be the only delegate at FLRC.--Cheetah (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
With school in session, I'm probably busy every weekend, but will still be able to help out on everyday basis. I would volunteer as a deputy of FLC and/or FLRC if no one opposes, but the only thing I'm worried about is my age. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would also volunteer to serve as a delegate/deputy for either process if I am needed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll throw my hat into the ring as well. I would be willing to serve and have plenty of time in my daily schedule to do so. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sub-notice

There is a significant chance that I will be off-wiki for at least two weeks mid-November as work has seen fit to send me to the Middle East. I hope to still be able to access the web regularly, but cannot guarantee it. I just wanted y'all to know that so we could continue to mitigate for the absence of directors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, we'll that just makes it more important for us to find another delegate. An election is looking good right now. iMatthew talk at 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For those who are curious


I found myself wondering about the various pairings of official directors/delegates, so I threw this together. I'm thinking of nominating it for FLC. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422's PC account (Talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It'll need some alt text, then... BencherliteTalk 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You better update this after the election! :) -- Why do I have to be pink? :( iMatthew talk at 02:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's cool to wear pink! When throwing it together, I was too lazy to look for colours, so I just chose (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1) and (1,0,1). Feel free to change it if you like. -- Scorpion0422
Come to think of it, the use of colour without accessible symbols in addition violates MOS:COLOUR; this FLC nomination is going to require a lot of work to pass. BencherliteTalk 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Fails criterion 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I knew the day would come when I would regret proposing that criterion. Damn you 3b! -- Scorpion0422 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A new delegate

I know I have no official power any more (we need a new position: FLC Godfather. I volunteer), but the delegate election is over and there is no one else to call it. I now proclaim Dabomb87 the winner new FL delegate. Congratulations, and good luck. A huge thank you also goes out to Giants2008 and Wrestlinglover, for running and sticking in there. Maybe we could kick out Matthewedwards and iMatthew and give them positions... -- Scorpion0422 03:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported me in the election, and to Giants2008 and Wrestlinglover, both of whom would be great delegates. I hope to meet the high standards that everyone expects of an FL delegate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats to Dabomb, who is among the most diligent editors Wikipedia has to offer. Having him as a delegate can only be a positive for the FL process. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible list nominated for GA

I'm concerned that a list may have been nominated for WP:GA. Please see WT:GAN#GAN might be a list and comment there. --Edge3 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Expert opinions needed at MoS talk

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Standard_table_background_colors. Thanks. Tony (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for slackness

Hopefully I'll be able to sort out the FLC closures asap. I apologise to nominators and reviewers for the lack of my activity recently, work has suddenly kicked my head off and I've been abroad for the weekend. No major dramaz though, I remember (back in the day, when this was all fields etc etc) when we had more than 60 lists under review... as far as I recall, nothing catastrophic occurred. And thanks to Dabomb for updating the FLC log, even though there wasn't much to update besides the update itself...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All three directors this month have been having availability problems. Makes you wonder how Raul654 managed FAC by himself for a long time. -- Scorpion0422 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well FAC is always a lot more nebulous about when they promote things. We're a bit more regimental here. Anyway, hopefully update now done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The timeline

I'd like to place the timeline (see above) of directors/delegates in the wikipedia space where it will have a permanent spot. It doesn't mean much, but it would give users a quick glance at the history. Any ideas where it could be placed, and does anyone object to doing this? -- Scorpion0422 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Matthewedwards/FL for sure. Gary King (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

New footnote system

FLC regulars should be aware of a new footnote system using cite.php in which refs are defined in the ref section rather than the body of an article. See this Signpost article, Help:Footnotes#List-defined references, and the discussion that led to this extension. In any case, please remember that neither this new style nor any other style of documenting sources is mandatory, as long as a) some understandable format (with necessary bibliographic info) is used, and b) the article is internally consistent in using that format. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC

Hey guys, we still have a nice list of FLs that might not be up to current standards. If you have some time, look though this list, and make sure to nominate any that no longer meet the criteria. Thanks, iMatthew talk at 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

For a list of old FLs that are categorized by criteria they do not meet, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has now blossomed into a full-fledged RfC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Long list / Listcruft

I didn't know where the best venue was and asking a few users individually I decided it would be here. Earlier this month I moved the large list/article (~141kB) Music on The O.C. into the mainspace. It isn't completely finished but it is fairly close now. Worried about its large size I originally questioned Dabomb who suggested possibly splitting the list into prose (for GAN) and list of songs (for FLC). However a pure list might be a bit WP:LISTCRUFT and I asked 97198 who said they thought on its own it would just be indiscriminate information. I was wondering what the FLC regulars would think of either this very large list being at FLC (when finished) or just the split off list of songs. All opinions welcome. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should split it. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, does anyone else share/oppose this view. I'd be interested in hearing director/delegate opinions on this if possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think this is listcruft and indiscriminate - it is very trivial to list every song used in a TV show - but it definitely should not be split into two pages. The article's prose is about what's in the list, so there's no need to separate them. Reywas92Talk 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it some more, I think it could either way. However, if the article stays as is, I would not support it at FLC. I think of it not as a list but as an article with a long embedded list. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see how some people would find it indiscriminate but (Spoiler: biased opinion) The O.C. is highly associated with it's music, and I'd say more so than most, if not any, other TV series. Additionally it seemed away a useful way to incorporate all the unwanted trivial music sections. Additionally, prior to this, each soundtrack had an individual article (example). Basically, the songs on the soundtracks seemed worth listing (74 of them I think), as did all the songs from the "Beckisode" (6 of them). Then songs done by bands actually appearing on the show (e.g. 4 from Rooney). Basically, it got to the point where I decided I make as well make the list "complete" instead of including certain songs fairly subjectively. I'm starting to accept it is unlikely ever to sit well at GAN/FLC/FAC, but I'm just interested in people's opinions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate on my previous response, I think it would be acceptable to submit this to FAC instead of FLC. I agree that it has enough prose to be considered an article with a list, rather than just a list. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MoS update: September 2009

Number signs: Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."

This will involve a significant change to comic and some popular-music lists (a bot may be forthcoming). The update is reflected in the concise version of the MoS, under "Number signs" at the bottom of the section.

[Personal note: I was under the impression that # might be permitted in tables and infoboxes, but this was not born out.] Tony (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC to increase the default thumbnail size of images

Although we often have trouble sizing images that lie alongside our tables in FLCs, nominators are free to force their size and location for optimal effect. However, the issue of the default thumbnail size of 180px has come to a head after many years. This size is what is displayed for our readers we do force the size, and is therefore of significance to FLs. Nominators and reviewers may wish to consider the discussion (above the linked section) and provide an opinion. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Two listings

Just noticed the bold text in the rules saying you can only have one listing at a time. I have two. Should I delist one and wait until the first completes? I listed them almost week apart because, well, this process has a tendency to move pretty slowly so I thought I could handle two not knowing there was a rule against it. Thought I'd ask here before I took action.—NMajdan•talk 12:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should probably remove the Sooners head coaches list for now. Just leave it up and I will take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

FLRC regarding criterion 3b that needs more eyes

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Dream Theater band members/archive1 if you have the time. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Temporary limit on nominations until the number of reviews pick up and the FLC backlog decreases

I hate to do this, but we're approaching 50 nominations, and there are still many 15-day-old (and older) FLCs that have only one or two reviews. Meanwhile, we have users who have multiple nominations up, and that is unfair to other nominators. Therefore, I am limiting all nominators to one nomination at a time at FLC. I will be archiving any FLCs that have no comments and are the second or higher active nomination by a user at this time. Sorry, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some free time tonight, I'll take a look at a few FLCs and leave some comments. -- Scorpion0422 00:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is helpful to alert potential nominators and urge people to review at the top of the FLC page. Meanwhile, I will see what I can do to relieve the backlog.—Chris!c/t 00:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have already seen an uptick in FLCs that have reviews. Thanks to all! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the restriction; however, I encourage reviewers to keep up their brisker pace. I also recommend that nominators hold back on submitting multiple nominations on the same subject, although this is by no means a ban on more than one FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive2

Because of the backlog, I've decided to WP:IAR and try promoting an obvious one. I already promote for FPC and FSC. Any objections to me continuing? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 00:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with this.—Chris!c/t 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you should have notified The Rambling Man first before promoting, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps in the future you should at least notify a director/delegate first, but hey, no harm done. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I do apologise for not notifying him: In all honesty, I presumed that he wasn't available for a while, since there was a backlog. And, of course, that's why I chose a really uncontroversial promote, stopped after just the one, and took it here =) Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 03:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you, but I personally would rather you didn't do it again, even in obvious cases. Firstly, the main FLC page does say "Nominations will be removed on Tuesdays and Saturdays", not "as and when during the week someone feels like it". If you had looked at the history, you would have seen that TRM promoted or archived 12 nominations just a couple of days ago, so hardly inactivity on his part. Would you have promoted an FAC mid-week if there was director/delegate inactivity? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2009 shows that FAC went for 12 days last month without any promotions (I was anxiously waiting for one of my noms to be closed, so I remember it well!), so it's not a hypothetical question. I suspect you wouldn't have, and I think FLC in that respect shouldn't be treated as a lesser process than FAC. Secondly, you'll see from elsewhere on this talk page that there are active discussions about the role/identity of directors/delegates at FLC/FLRC, which seem to be drawing to a conclusion and which indicate that TRM isn't the only person who will be available to close here. Even though you're experienced in closing F*C noms, I'd rather not have an IAR exception being used at FLC, in case it causes problems when others, less experienced, invoke it in future. BencherliteTalk 05:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure! Sorry, but, well, I didn't realise how recent the promotions were, and so misstepped.I shan't do it again Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 06:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


One review this weekend

Idea stolen from the FAC talk page

Perhaps everyone who watches this page ([1]) could review one article this weekend? Think how helpful that would be, get rid of the backlog for a while. Mm40 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

Hi Guys. You've no doubt notice that I haven't made an appearance at FLC in recent weeks, first due to my internet access, but when I finally got DSL installed I still never came back.

Before I went offline Scorpion had just announced his resignation from the position after being absent for some time. During that time I was doing the majority of FLC closures and it was beginning to become tedious, unenjoyable, and difficult. There were very few reviewers as many were on vacation or returning to school and it became increasingly difficult to judge consensus based on one or two reviews. At the same time, some people also said they would rather have me as a reviewer than a director. So while I was gone I took the time to think about whether I wanted to continue in my role as a co-director of WP:FLC and I decided that since I no longer enjoy it, I may serve the process better as a reviewer. I wasn't going to resign immediately but wait until probably the new year so that it wouldn't look like both directors were jumping ship or deserting it, or had no faith in it, or whatever. FL never gets favourable consideration by the rest of the Wikipedia community, and I didn't want my leaving so soon after Scorpion's to add to that.

Anyway, by the time I could come back online, we were displaced for a few days due to the wildfires, and I've had other things going on personally that has just made me feel tired, stressed, and dis-interested in things I normally enjoy, including all of Wikipedia in general. As you can see, my contribs have been severely down last month with me editing only on 8 days.

Well I've decided not to wait. Because that may just be as damaging to it if I do stay and don't really do anything on it. Holding on to the title for the sake of having a title won't help anything. If there's someone else who would be able to carry out the duties better/more frequently/more willing than I am, I shouldn't stop them. So this is my official stepping down statement, effective immediately. I'm still going to be here at FLC reviewing, nominating, and keeping an eye out on things, but my days as a director have come to an end.

I just want to say thanks to Scorpion, The Rambling Man, DaBomb, iMatthew, and all the previous delegates, because this is a rather thankless task that can take up a lot of your on-Wiki time, and also thanks to everyone who nominates and reviews candidates, and keeps the process alive.

Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder if this might happen. Can I be the first to thank you for all you have done, and I hope you continue to frequent the FLC circles. Additionally I hope that things in real life pick up for you. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Although this is another hit we take, I wish you the very best in your real life pursuits, and hope things cheer up a bit for you.
Thank you, both. I'm sure things will calm down for me eventually, in some way, but until then I can't dedicate my time here in any way that continues to benefit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just don't be a stranger Matthew. Thanks for all you've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your fine service, which hopefully will not end here. FLC has faced a reviewer shortage lately, and it would be great to see you active there. Cheers. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Matthew, you have been an amazing director and reviewer, and your contributions here have been excellent and top notch. Good luck with the break and I hope we can see you back here some day. -- Scorpion0422 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, moving on

Sorry to have the same topic again, but it must happen. I propose the following: TRM (FLC) iMatthew, and DaBomb (FLRC) continue with their respective jobs. If TRM is away, iMatthew will do closures at FLC and DaBomb at FLRC. If iMatthew and TRM are away, DaBomb will close FLCs and Giants2008, who we deemed respectable at the FLRC delegate election, will close FLRCs. If all three are away (gulp), then we destroy the process entirely ;) But in all seriousness, what should we do if all three are away? Should have another election? Mm40 (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No, what seems to be the most logical idea would be leaving Dabomb at FLRC. I originally told Matty that I'd rather see Dabomb take over his role, but then I realized we'd lose him as a reviewer, which CAN'T happen. I'm available to move up and take Matty's role if there's no objection, which would leave Dabomb at FLRC alone. However, I wanted to ask Giants2008 to step up and work with Dabomb at FLRC, as per the election where he gained a fair amount of support. It seems highly unlikely that the four of us would be inactive at the same time, but if that ever happens, it's not a big deal. There's no time limit, so if nominations stay open an extra week, I'm sure everyone will live. iMatthew talk at 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds reasonable, and if things do get to the point where everyone is absent for a week or two, I would be fine to step in on a temporary basis. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. If everything goes as iMatthew has planned, TRM will be FLC director, iMatthew will be FLC delegate, Dabomb87 and Giants2008 will be FLRC delegates. Am I getting everything right? By the way, I still says that Matty is FLC director on WP:FLC. It's been 8 days since FLCs have been closed... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, by saying he wants to "take Matty's role", I think IMatthew is saying he could potentially become his replacement as director. If another FLRC delegate is needed as a result, I am still interested in serving if called on. Giants2008 (17–14) 18:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective...

Although the director/delegate role seems to have merit, we seem to strive to have at least two candidates working at FLC and two at FLRC. FAC seems to have one director (Raul) and one extraordinarily hard-working delegate (SandyGeorgia). Do we feel that four "ordained" folk are really necessary? At FLRC we rarely have more than four nominations, so while I'm keen to avoid direct conflicts of interest, I don't see why we need separate roles for FLC/FLRC director/delegate. Back in the day, even as FLC director, I would review each and every nomination, and then base my promotion/unpromotion decision on everyone else's opinion. It just took a little bit of latitude from those around me to realise that I would not abuse my position, i.e. if I thought a nom was crap but everyone else supported it, it would most definitely get promoted. What I hate to see (and what seems more frequent) is that our best reviewers become directors/delegates and therefore place themselves into potential COI situations and, as a result, no longer review lists. It's Catch 22.

So, perhaps a slightly "radical" overhaul? I think we should have me, Dabomb87 and iMatthew as directors of both FLC and FLRC who are still at liberty to review anything, and indeed promote/demote using good judgement on any COIs. This is a wiki, we'd all be open to cross-examination should any of us make any controversial moves. I know that Dabomb and I will potentially be unavailable for extended periods towards the end of the year, and that would be a good time for Giants2008 to get involved as well. Back in the day (once more) we didn't have directors, lists just gained a consensus and were promoted. Maybe we're going to head back that way from now on.

As an aside, my apologies for the lack of closures recently. I always read through and check each nomination beforehand but real-life work pressures have made it really difficult this last week. Hopefully from now on I'll have more time to get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me as well. If you, Dabomb, and myself work together as FL directors, we can handle FLC and FLRC. Like you said, while you and Dabomb are both away, I'll have Giants2008 hop up to help me if I need it. iMatthew talk at 18:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's not forget that FAC also has FAR delegates. I like the idea of iMatthew, TRM and Dabomb sharing the director role, but I would still like it if we had a FLR delegate because of COI issues (which is why the position was created in the first place). -- Scorpion0422 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see some instances of real problems with COI here. I understand that theoretically it can occur but I trust my fellow delegates to 'get it right', and if we don't, it won't be long before we get shouted at... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the proposal is that we simply have three FL directors and do away with the delegate position, but Giants2008 will take over in case of emergencies? Does anyone disagree with this idea? -- Scorpion0422's PC account (Talk) 18:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that the directors look after both FLC and FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
...and those directors are free to review nominations assuming that the community has adjudged they won't have a COI by this, and can act in a neutral manner? I would support this, as after all it has worked well before. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. If I'm needed at a certain time, just be sure to ping me on my talk page in advance. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, would it be possible for there to be notice (perhaps in the 10-day limit box at the top of FLC, perhaps elsewhere) of which lists are being held for lack of reviews as opposed to those being held because concerns are being addressed? It would help to focus reviewers on the places they would be able to help most efficiently. Geraldk (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If you see a list on the backlog box that is being worked on and doesn't need reviews, feel free to boldly remove it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion

So, are we in agreement – three co-directors, me, User:Dabomb87 and User:iMatthew, responsible for both FLC and FLRC, all at liberty to review any or all of the lists, but promoting/delisting only those without a clear COI? If there's no major dissent over the next couple of days, I'll file the paperwork and we can carry on carrying on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FLRC review/nomination request

Hi all. This is just your friendly FLRC director with his usual reminder to FLC folk to check in at FLRC now and then. I'm not asking for much, but if you all could do one or more of the following things, that would be great:

  • Nominate a featured list for review. The FLC criteria is continually rising, and as a result we always have lists that no longer meet standards, some not even by a long shot. Of course, be bold and fix what you can yourself, but sometimes it's good to get a wider opinion on how a list can be improved. There's a list of FLs that need to be improved at WP:FLS; feel free to work on them or nominate them for FLRC (or both!).
  • Work on a list currently at FLRC. The primary purpose of FLRC is to identify lists that need to be improve and improve them so that the community can deem it to be FL-worthy again. If you see a list at FLRC that you can fix up, please do!
  • Review FLRCs. Anything helps here, whether it is a full laundry list of issues, a drive-by comment about how a list can be improved, or even a statement of whether the list should be kept or delisted, with an explanation.

Thanks again for your hard work. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a lower limit for the number of entries in a featured list? Specifically I would like to improve the lists in List of National Treasures of Japan and bring them up to the same level as the featured sculpture list. Do short lists like this or this have a chance of ever going to be featured? bamse (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot speak for everyone, but usually the general minimum is regarded as 10 items. However with those two cases above, could there be scope for merging to a parent article, which looking at List of National Treasures of Japan, would suggest List of National Treasures of Japan (buildings and structures) as a logical parent? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Or you can keep them separate and have them peer reviewed as part of the good topic process, if that's your end goal for the set. Geraldk (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
If a list doesn't meet criterion 3b (and probably won't do so in the foreseeable future), then it shouldn't exist, meaning it should be merged (not peer reviewed for a GA-topic). As for the number of items: If there was a minimum, that minimum would be spelled out in the criteria, though a one-item-list would probably be better off at FAC. Anyways, these two lists (assuming they are comprehensive already) don't meet 3b in my opinion. The solution to your problem is making the pages follow summary style. Then all the content currently linked from List of National Treasures of Japan can become featured. By the way, List of National Treasures of Japan most definately should not be a disambiguation page. Hope that helped. Goodraise 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the long term goal (in the far far away future) is a "good topic" for National Treasures of Japan. The problem with merging is, that a List of National Treasures of Japan (buildings and structures) would turn out to be very long and there does not seem to be another logical parent. The present splitting (in temples, shrines, etc) follows that of the official source by the way. What is List of National Treasures of Japan if not a disambiguation page? It is not an article either, is it? A list maybe? bamse (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It could be an article about the National Treasures in general. How they are chosen. Why the process for choosing them was developed. Who chooses them. Etc. You'll have addressed some of that in the lead for the lists, but I'm sure there's plenty to be said. Geraldk (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, you could consider merging just a few of the smaller articles in. For example, List of National Treasures of Japan (castles and miscellaneous structures). Geraldk (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The article about National Treasures (NT) in general exists under National Treasures of Japan. There are two reasons why I created List of National Treasures of Japan: (i) to link to the corresponding Lists of NTs on non-English wikipedias (which cover all NT in one list albeit in much less detail). (ii) To direct somebody who enters "List of National Treasures of Japan" in the wikipedia search box (probably not a very likely case though). bamse (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not good. List of National Treasures of Japan should be redirected to National Treasures of Japan. Interwiki links should be added to National Treasures of Japan. Whether the article on another Wikipedia is a list or not is irrelevant. Then National Treasures of Japan needs to be adjusted to follow Wikipedia:Summary style. If done correctly, this will take care of all the problems you've mentioned so far. Goodraise 21:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, on the Japanese wikipedia (and probably also the Chinese), there is one article AND one list: (i) a general article about NT of Japan which corresponds to National Treasures of Japan and is interwiki-linked to it. (ii) a list of all NT of Japan which corresponds to List of National Treasures of Japan and is interwiki-linked to it. I don't see what the problem with the present situation is. There are many cases on the English wikipedia where there is a general article and a list. If I followed your suggestion (to replace List of National Treasures of Japan with a redirect to National Treasures of Japan, there would be interwiki-links to two different Japanese language articles, which is not pretty in my opinion. bamse (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
How other language Wikipedias arrange their content is of no concern to us. If our editors decide that List of National Treasures of Japan should not be an article (lists are articles too), then we won't have it as an article. Period. If we have an article and several lists and they have an article and one list, then you only interlink our article with their's. The problem with keeping List of National Treasures of Japan as it is now is that it's in violation of our guidelines. It's not a disambiguation page (disambiguation pages list articles on topics with similar names) and it's not a list (lists list items that may or may not have articles). At best, it is a content fork of the main article. Goodraise 09:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. The "List of lists" that currently acts as a disambiguation should be expanded/merged to National Treasures of Japan There is easily enough information to write a few paragraphs of prose on each type of treasure using summary style, with "main" links to the lists. Such an article could become a GA, which would be preferable to a FL for this example (and a merged parent article would make getting a topic done easier too).YobMod 12:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested to help with this? Not sure what you mean by "a merged parent article would make getting a topic done easier too". bamse (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
A topic of National Treasures of Japan would require the article of the same name, which should act as a parent article for the topic (so should link to all the sub-lists), and the list if it existed. If these 2 are merged, there is only one article needing to go through GA, and the expanded scope (writing a paragraph on each type of national treasure) would make passing the broadness criterion of GA easier. My first advice would be to simply merge the list of lists into the "list" section of the article, then start expansion by copying (with some adaption) the lead info from the individual lists into this parent article. As the individual lists become featured, the majority of the parent article should then already be far above the standard needed for a GA in sourcing and writing. I can do the merge and give some help (although i don't know anything about the subject!)YobMod 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Now I see your point. It would be great if you could do the merge. Something to watch out for is that there are two parent articles: National Treasures of Japan and Living National Treasures of Japan. These two should definitely not be merged as the designation criteria differ. The latter is just a popular name for "Preservers of Important Intangible Cultural Properties". bamse (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If I may, why not just make the description fuller and more detailed if you have short lists? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. However, wouldn't it be an article (as opposed to a list) in this case? bamse (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Articles and lists aren't that clearly separated from each other. Take for example Smallville (season 1) and List of Naruto characters. Do what's best for the content. Worry about whether the result is a list article or a non-list article later. Goodraise 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for cleanup?

Wikipedia:Featured lists/Cleanup listing has been updated, and I just want to encourage people to have a look and maybe see if they can fix the problems listed. Might be easy, might not, and if the problems are serious it might warrant FLRC. Regardless if we all help this won't take long. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nice. I'm on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Messed up talk page

I found List of districts of West Bengal off the cleanup listing in the post above, and saw that the FL template on the talk page is a bit messed up. I realize it has something to do with another title, but am unable to fix it. Mm40 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, it was just a bit of vandalism which I've reverted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FLC time-lengths

I see there have been changes in director(s) here. Is the 10-14 day turnover still a goal here, with extentions only if work is ongoing or not enough reviewers? Are nominations now being allowed to run simply until there is enough consensus? or it there just a backlog of closing? A few of the open nominations have been around for a long time, and the articles don't seem to be being worked on at all. Reviewers rarely seem to oppose, so it is up to directors to decide a cut of date when reasonable reviews are not acted upon.

I ask as nominations that last longer than a month as standard would seem to encourage people to nominate lists that are clearly not ready, as there is no deadline for any work needing to be done (I know people already do that at GAN due to the long waits there). If there is no schedule anymore, can the "Nominations urgently needing reviews" box be updated to reflect the current ethos, and anywhere else the time limits are mentioned. Or are the recomendations still in force and we need more directors to keep up?YobMod 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just a backlog of closures. The goal is still 10-14 days, and there are a number of discussions which are closeable. I would close some, but don't want to step on any toes. Directors - is everthing OK? Geraldk (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll be the first to confess that I haven't done many closures lately as a result of a couple of unpleasant moments. I hope that I can get back onto it before long, but reviewers and nominators alike need to remember that we're all volunteers and if things don't work out perfectly then a gentle nudge is better than a trout. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to run through and do some closures tonight if you guys need the help. Geraldk (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Well that's jolly decent of you. We normally do the closures to coincide with Gimmebot who formally closes out the nominations and awards the stars etc. If you close anything today it'll be Saturday night (midnight UTC) before those noms are completely closed out. We do have {{FLCClosed}} to help with this though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That'll work. If I screw anything up, just have the trout ready. Geraldk (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I would never use a trout. Perhaps a sardine. Help is appreciated, just don't fall foul of the nay-sayers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Full instructions on how to close a nomination are at User:Matthewedwards/FL#Closing FLCs, and I'll try to review some of the oldest tonight.

(outdent) If the lack of reviewers is a long-standing problem, and it is very rare for enough supports to acrue in 10 days, should this 10 day limit not be scrapped or changed? I originally started this section as we were waiting to see a FLC outcome for a topic, but agreeing to wait in such cases is dependant of being able to estimate how long FLC generally take. I also don't think it is helpful to nominators to imply that 10 days is typical, when 30 days is more reasonable - I know I would cetainly approach nominations differently when i know there is no rush to do improvments. I don't mind if this ends up promting a big push to speed up reviews or to lengthen the recomended times, but either way the recomended times need to more closely follow the reality.YobMod 12:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Need Reviews

Need some people to take a look at the debate GoodRaise and I have been having at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS/archive1 about the length of the article. Geraldk (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

OK, well, there are currently 28 lists in the queue that were nominated 10 or more days ago. In a lot of these cases, it seems the issue is not so much delays by the Directors, but lack of reviews. So I have a general question - how do we get more reviewers? Geraldk (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of reviewers who were formerly contributing at a high level have retired, are busy IRL, or have otherwise disappeared. I never considered myself a huge part of the review process, but that's because I'm not confident in my abilities to review lists outside of sporting topics. I am not contributing a lot of the review process right now, but when I return from my "wiki-bonked" period (I'm just taking a couple of days off from processes and lengthy heated discussions), I will try to review more. I could probably use some mentorship when it comes to reviewing things like discographies and TV season episode lists, because I'm not nearly as familiar with the different criteria for those topics, and don't know anything about the reliability of their sources. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the regulars are probably already tired of hearing this from me, so I'll try to make it short. I've never been and never will be a high volume reviewer. What, for me, makes the difference between reviewing a handful of lists per month or reviewing none at all is my very own, very subjective impression on whether I'm making a difference. The first (and, I admit, mostly only) place I look for ways to make a difference is in the backlog. Currently, there's two FLCs in there: one with 3 supports to 0 opposes and one with 4.5 supports to 0 opposes. If you hadn't pointed out in your opening post that there's so many old nominations in the queue. I never would've noticed. -- Actually, perhaps I should start maintaining the backlog myself. Goodraise 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
We need more reviewers. Simple as that. I've had a scan over the lists this morning and yes, we have a lot up there (although in the past we regularly had over 60, so 45 or so isn't a major issue) and it's pretty clear to me that most of them still need reviews. If you nominate a list, go and review one (or two or three). It doesn't matter if you're not familiar with the topic, just weigh in with comments and maybe an opinion. And Goodraise, if you'd like to help out then please do so. This is, after all, a wiki. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I've updated the backlog right after I posted that. However, the time I can spend on Wikipedia is limited, which is the whole point of what I said. If it appears that there is enough reviewers, I'll just go edit something else. If you want more reviewers, you have to make people aware of the problem. There's enough people capable of reviewing content. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many nominations. It's just a matter of getting them to actually do it. Goodraise 09:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any suggestions as to how to get more reviewers? We've been asking people who post here for months to review lists if they nominate their own. It doesn't seem to work out that way - a lot of folks are more into getting their own bronze star and don't too bothered about any of the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, you have? (I've not been very active over the past month, so I'm not exactly up to speed.) Well, if the lack of reviews is related to a lack of rewards (and you make it sound that way), then perhaps that should be changed? Goodraise 11:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't do treats, we just expect people to be reasonable - if you expect four or five people to review your list, go and review one or two others. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Who are you telling that to? My personal nomination/review count is way in favor of reviews and you won't find a single bronze star pinned to my userpage. I also never complained about lack of reviews, I'm only responding when the issue comes up on this talk page. Goodraise 11:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm telling that to anyone that wonders why we have a backlog. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
(and I found three bronze stars on your userpage ;-p) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Lack of reviewers is a problem at virtually all processes: FAC frequently closes reviews for lack of participation, there's a large GAC backlog, PR is backlogged, I'm told that FPC is inquorate on occasions, I had a nomination at Valued Pictures open for three weeks with nobody commenting at all (the last time I bother going there), I've seen appeals for reviewers at Featured Portals. It's not just an FLC problem, Goodraise. BencherliteTalk 09:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Having recently nominated my first list, and in light of the situation, yes there are low reviewers, yes I'm aware, and yes I personally would like to help, but however, it's more a fact of being comfortable that your comments are correct, I mean Dabomb87 had to basically revamp my entire lead for List of Bleach video games, so thats lowered my level that I'm at reviewing level. I'm sure myself and others would like to help, we just aren't comfortable with making comments. --Lightlowemon (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
No need to write a lengthy reply, when WP:BOLD explains it so well. You can't do harm, so there's no reason not to try. Goodraise 11:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, don't think that your reviewing ability is diminished because there were a few glitches in your writing (nobody can write perfect prose off the bat); I just shifted a few words and commas around, nothing more. Besides, there's a lot more to lists than the writing of the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

YobMod makes an interesting point in the conversation directly above this one. If the reality is that no nomination is ever finished within the 10 day window, then, Yob asks, does it make sense to expand the window? An alternative would be to add a definite end - say any list that has not met consensus after 20 days automatically fails. But then this all depends on whether reviewers are actually getting to the lists... meh... I've got nothing Geraldk (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of the 10 days is to make sure that no list is promoted without giving every editor reasonable time to oppose. Nominations closed on the 10 day mark are the best case scenario, not the expectation. Goodraise 17:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should change it up a little—all nominations will last for 10 days or more, but when they are promoted depends on consensus, not on timing, although we shouldn't have nominations that are more than a month old. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well make it 14 days then. It's really not that important, as Goodraise nailed the point, it's to allow time for the rest of the community to get involved and not rush lists through. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I like DaBomb's idea of making clear that 10 days is at this point pretty much a minimum, but we have far too many lists that are taking close to a month (or even more) to work their way through. Geraldk (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the 10 days have always been a minimum. I don't object to pointing that out more clearly, but I don't like the idea of raising that minimum. It would only serve to encourage dragging out what nominations we have. If a nomination can be closed after 10 days, then that's a good thing. Goodraise 15:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a small thing, but I would alter the policy about who can close nominations. WP:FPC has been freer for a long time and it works just fine. It's not often, but there are sometimes noms that backlog with clear consensus support (like the one Shoemaker closed as a test case a week ago or so). As for reviews, I agree some form of thank you would be nice to encourage real work. Don't worry Goodraise, I have a feeling there'll be something on your talk page once we're done with 30 Rock (season 3). :) Staxringold talkcontribs 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I just hope that seeing such a large list of FLCs won't discourage the reviewers we have. It takes some real effort to sort through a large collection of articles and pick one or more to review; for someone like me who likes to review everything in a certain field, it can seem overwhelming at times. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I wish I could help like I used to, but I think I can possible squeeze one or two reviews this weekend. Hope this helps out in someway. Time constraints suck.--Truco 503 17:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I want to be able to do more reviews, but I haven't had the time (I did some a couple of weeks ago, then forgot about them and did not return to see if my comments were addressed). -- No TV and no beer make Scorpion0422 something something 16:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator banned

FYI to the Directors, the nominator of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Romanian counties by foreign trade/archive1 has been banned, and it doesn't seem likely anyone else will take over the nomination. Geraldk (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We could notify WP:ROMANIA or WP:Economics, to see if any of their members are willing to complete the nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I already notify Wikipedia:ROMANIA.—Chris!c/t 22:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
If someone doesn't take control of the FLC in a few days, I'll probably close it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My level of activity

I just wanted to let everyone know that as I've been recently, I'll be pretty inactive with FLC in the coming weeks. If I don't see it getting better after a week or two, it's likely that I'll be forced to resign as director. I'm hoping I'll find time to start helping out more, but if I cannot, there's no need for me to continue holding the title of director. Hoping for the best! iMatthew talk at 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your future status, thank you for your work as a nominator and reviewer of Featured lists and your work at FLRC. As a more general comment, I don't think anything much will change if IMatthew does resign—I usually have time to close during weekends, and TRM has been pretty reliable about closing during the week. The real crunch will come in a month and a half. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If I do feel forced to resign, there is no need to call for someone else to step up. I'm not retiring from Wikipedia, so I will still be around and am able to do closures if ever both directors are not around. I'll keep you all posted on my status. Cheers! iMatthew talk at 03:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Quick update on my movements and moods... I'm most likely to be abroad for just over a week as of next Tuesday, hoping to have internet access however, and quite possibly even the time on my hands to do the closures if required. Then, I'll be abroad again in early December for a week, but hopefully with similar access levels. In the middle of those trips I'm moving house so won't have internet access for an undefined period of time... In any case, I'll do my best to close FLCs as and when I can. If it happens to not coincide with Gimmebot, I'm sorry, but a late/early closure is better than a backlog, at least that's what I'm hearing... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason Gimmebot doesn't run more frequently?—NMajdan•talk 13:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Gimmebot's schedule depends on the availability of its operator, Gimmetrow (talk · contribs). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

For a featured list, is it preferable to have all table entries spelled out in full or is it possible to use abbreviations, especially if all entries in a column have the same structure. I am planning to make a featured list out of List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines). Before completing the "remarks" column I'd like to get some feedback. A long entry could look like the first line (Ōsaki Hachiman Shrine) while the same in compact form could be:

Honden: 5x3, 1s, irimoya, shake roof;
Ishi-no-ma: 1x1, 1s, ryōsage, shake roof;
Haiden: 5x3 (7 along the front), 1s, irimoya, shake roof, front with a chidori hafu and a 5 ken step canopy with a nokikarahafu

The abbreviations and specialised terms will appear many times in the table and could be explained ones in the lead section. Which of the two versions, the one above or that in List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) is preferable? I'd also be grateful about other suggestions on how to improve the list.bamse (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe MOS states that each row in a table should be able to stand on its own. Meaning, if you want to abbreviate something, abbreviate every instance in the template and either wikilink it or include something in the legend. That, or spell out everything in every row.—NMajdan•talk 13:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
So the compact form would be enough if I added an explanation in the usage section? bamse (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A reminder...

.. to check the Wikipedia:Featured lists/Cleanup listing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Image advice at List of male performers in gay porn films

I have been doing a many-month job of cleaning-up and referencing List of male performers in gay porn films. Unfortunately I have run into a bit of a scuffle over the lede image with an editor I have had some poor experiences with elsewhere. They seem determined that lists shouldn't have images, which I'm quite sure isn't true, and/or the lede shouldn't have an image or it's somehow wrong for an image of one person should/can't represent everyone on the list. Sadly I think the motivations have little to do with any interest in actually improving the article. Having stated that I was hoping to keep working along and eventually break the list down into several sub-articles, like A-G, H-M, etc. In that case each article would have different images all corresponding to people on the list. So, do we have any written policies on this or could someone offer an experienced list opinion at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films? Any help appreciated! -- Banjeboi 01:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your message above is a wholly unecessary and unfounded attack on my motivations and only serves to cast me in a poor light to those reading it. Can you please refactor it so that it is about the disagreement rather than a personal attack? Feel free to remove this reply as well. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel it in any way mischaracterizes my experiences or what I see as your actions. I think your actions on that list speak for themself and I came here looking for some sage advice on the general issue. Your interest in removing the Lucas image from the lede there simply pushed for the need for clarification sooner than I had seen to get the same. Only you know why you targeted the Lucas image but the coincidence of my being the lead editor there and Shankbone being the one who took and uploaded the image coupled with your well-known activities with Wikipedia Review which have attacked both of us, well, there's a saying that good faith isn't a suicide pact. If this was all some grandiose set of coincidences then you indeed have my apologies. Regardless I'm still hoping someone else might answer my queery as long as I'm here. -- Banjeboi 11:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, this isn't the place for this discussion, but it's interesting to note that when I have a disagreement with other editors, they generally don't suggest that my motivations are suspect, accuse me of harassment, try to link me to BADSITES, or imply that I'm a homophobe - we just discuss the issue until we arrive at a result that everyone can live with. It would be nice if you could try that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe I've addressed any phobias and generally am not interested unless it affects your interactions with others. I know this is yet another in a series of unfortunate interactions I've had with you so I can't pretend that I see your actions on this in a vacuum. In any case I got the answers I was seeking and maybe we've all learned something new. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me (although others may disagree) that having an image in the lede section of a simple listing of linked articles gives undue weight to the subject of that image. Perhaps this is less of a concern if the listing is of waterfowl, but when it is a listing of performers, the one whose image appears at the top of the page is clearly being featured. If there were a single name listed in the text of the lede sentence, I don't think there would be any dispute about this, yet the image has a stronger effect than a text link. I do not believe this should be an issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the page in question is not a FLC, this really wasn't the right forum to reignite or continue discussing this. If you are having a dispute with another editor, there are dedicated pages to assist in that, as well as talk pages dedicated to image-related questions.
Anyways, images are perfectly okay for lists, though they are not a requirement. In fact, no article requires images -- there are some FAs that are image free. Oftentimes, an image in the lede is desirable, if only to entice the reader by offering some pretty, jazzed up hoo-ha to break up the text. Delicious carbuncle is right in that using the image of one actor could be seen as giving undue weight to that actor, and that should be avoided with something neutral if possible. There are quite a few archived FLCs of sports people and such where people suggest that a lede image of one person be replaced by a group shot or something like a trophy or stadium, but then there are quite a few successful FLs that do not. I would remove the image from the Lede and put it somewhere else in the article. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate the insight. BTW am I hoping to eventually send this to FLC so felt asking here was the best way to get the best answer from folks who deal with these issues. I may be back for more advice later. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Temporary changes at FLC and FLRC coming soon

Hi all. I have mentioned this before, but I want to make sure everyone is aware. From December 12, 2009, to early January 2010, I will be on vacation, with limited (if not nonexistent) Internet access. This makes it highly unlikely that I will be able to regularly take care of my usual FLC duties. Giants2008 (talk · contribs) has generously agreed to step in as a temporary FLC/FLRC delegate during the period of my absence, and I'm sure The Rambling Man and IMatthew will help out as much as they can. However, given how busy editors are during this time of the year, please have patience with all of us. Hopefully, I will be able to return to normal editing levels in mid-January. After I leave in three weeks, I'll try to pop in as much as possible, but don't expect much. Until then, let's keep up the good work in building and reviewing quality lists. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as some of you have noticed, I'm currently moving house (due to complete tomorrow, fingers crossed!) and will be without home internet for perhaps up to two weeks. I will endeavour to do my best at work, but as I'm sure you all understand, this is not ideal; both from my perspective nor my employer. So, as Dabomb has said, please be patient while we wriggle through the Christmas period, we'll all do what we can, when we can. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I can help out as needed as well.—NMajdan•talk 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Following on from Dabomb's note in the promotion list, I think the main thing is that the reviews keep coming. There's no inherent problem with lists not being promoted and demoted for a few weeks, but there's certainly a problem if when the directors are back there isn't enough consensus to promote any. I'll try to step up my review rate over the next month or so. WFCforLife (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Limit on number of nominations

I remember a while ago, there was a limit of one nomination at a time per user. Is it still enforced, or could I nominate List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) in addition to List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)? bamse (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of reviewers we have right now due to the holidays, a temporary restraint on the number of active nominations probably would not be uncalled for. However, no such restriction is currently in place. The only rule is that "users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed."—NMajdan•talk 23:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No, there's no hard limit, but nominators shouldn't have two lists up at the same time that have essentially the same format, or reviewers might potentially have to make the same comments twice. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should be discouraging submissions in any way. I would just hope you review multiple others if you have multiple up. Reywas92Talk 03:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not outright discouraging multiple nominations, but if having over one FLC up at a time unnecessarily taxes reviewers, then it's not helpful. Keep in mind that FAC is far more stringent, with a one-at-a-time nomination policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I'll wait with the second nomination and encourage reviewers to comment here. Will try to review one or two other nominations to reduce the backlog. bamse (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second here

Juliancolton recently promoted a list. [2] Isn't that what the directors are for? Looking through the history, I see that Juliancolton has done other closers, and several other non-director closures were made, including by Geraldk [3] and Shoemaker's Holiday [4].

The question is, why are non-directors doing closures when we have three directors? And if those three directors don't have the time to do closures themselves to the point that they are asking others to do it or others are growing impatient, then are changes needed? -- Scorpion0422 05:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I wasn't very happy about it either, but it has happened before when all three were in a time crunch, so I'm not terribly surprised. However, anyone non-director who wants to close should read this. I hate to use Julian as an example (no humiliation, ill will or contempt intended), but non-directors should close an FLC only when a) all three directors have a clear conflict of interest, b) none of the directors have been around for a long time, or c) the status of the FLC is absolute not in doubt, and the closure would be considered non-controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
More coming in about nine hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. I think I recall one of the directors indicating that "regular" people could close FLCs on occasion, and since the nomination durations were getting unreasonably lengthy and the directors are/will be busy, I thought it would be acceptable to help out. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting note. Since October 1, Juliancolton has done closures on three occasions. IMatthew has done closures on two occasions. -- Scorpion0422 05:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been very, very busy. However, my schedule should loosen up in the New Year. Sorry about the lack of activity, hopefully I'll be around full time soon! :-) iMatthew talk at 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of appointing three directors was so that there would always be someone who could do closures when needed. Both myself and Matty stepped aside because we knew we would be inactive and we thought our resigning would allow for a more active director to be appointed. But now, editors have been taking on themselves to do closures. Perhaps some delegates need to be appointed, or a change in leadership is needed. -- Scorpion0422 05:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
When I was told I was becoming a director, I wasn't expecting to be as busy as I am at work. Like I said, after the holidays, and the new year, I'll be working less and be more active on Wikipedia. TRM has been busy with work as well, and Dabomb has undoubtedly been doing as much as possible to keep up with the closures. I believe once the new year begins, all three of us will be active enough to keep up with all closures. In the mean time, Giants2008 has agreed (after Dabomb's request) to do closures and help out. So you can consider him a delegate, if you'd like to give him a title. ;) iMatthew talk at 05:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 12#FLC time-lengths. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not just appoint three people as back up of each director/delegate. Normally, they won't be promoting, but they would step in for the job temporarily if necessary (e.g. if one of the current director/delegate is busy). I think this would solve the problem.—Chris!c/t 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't need more directors, delegates, or IAR closures. We need more reviewers. Goodraise 20:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The chances of all three directors being unable to close FLCs are slim. If such an opportunity arises, we (directors) will ask someone. Unless TRM and IMatthew (and Giants, the interim director while I'm gone) object, any non-director who wants to close an FLC must ask a director first. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the chances of all three directors being unable to close FLCs are slim, but it is still possible to happen. I think there is no harm to just have someone as backup for each directors. For instance, Giants can be your fixed back up. So, whenever you are busy, he can be asked to fill in on a temporary basis.—Chris!c/t 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And of course, if that is the case, non-directors shouldn't be promoting at all.—Chris!c/t 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quickie from me. As most of you are aware, I've been sent away on business quite a bit lately, and expect to end up in the Middle East once again this week. Add to that the fact I've just moved house and, thanks to Rupert Murdoch, I can't get broadband for another 10 days. I've borrowed a 3G dongle so I can be around in emergencies, but it's far from ideal. So, excuses aside, in response to above, I'm with Dabomb87 100%. It would be highly appropriate for non-directors to at least notify a director before closing any FLC. I was, in fact, going to close three reviews (after a request from Dabomb) only to discover I hadn't reviewed them and I wasn't happy with any of them being promoted. So, to echo what Goodraise has said, we don't need more directors/delegates etc, we need more reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I too have just purchased one of those new-fangled Apple tech thingies that have WiFi, so hopefully even in emergencies I should be able to take care of essential things. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Another reason why non-directors should not close FLCs: directors are expected to know closing procedures, and so will usually do the necessary items. It was just discovered that the FL count has been off by six for more than a month ([5], [6]). Please (general comment directed at nobody in particular) be more careful! Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I used to always forget and it took me about a year before I was able to always remember to update the count. -- Scorpion0422 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
And falling behind in the count is nothing new. I think at one point we were behind by eight, though that was before we had directors. -- Scorpion0422 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When is a list not a list

Dabomb87 sent me over from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/archive1, where I'm having doubts that this article even is a list article - or it may just be that it could be named better. Whichever, a couple more voices would be helpful, as I'm acutely aware that I could be wrong here. It would also be very helpful to the nominator, as he wants to rewrite all the List of Parliamentary constituencies... articles to look like this one.

The problem I have with the list under review is that while it says it is a list of parliamentary (ie central government) constituencies in the given area, the article also contains - as well as the lede, references and a list of current (2005 election) and proposed (2010 election) constituencies (ie what's supposed to be there):-

  • two paragraphs on the history of parliamentary government in Hertfortshire, going back to the 13th century CE
  • a timeline history of each constituency (also going back to C13 CE)
  • a separate list showing over time the number of MPs returned by constituencies which returned more than one MP.

The table containing the list of constituencies shows electoral ward by local authority by constituency. This neatly illustrates in table format how the two separate systems of government operating in the UK don't quite mesh with each other. For local government purposes, the entire country is divided into electoral wards, each of which return a number of elected members. Wards are grouped to form local authorities, which levy a local property tax, to pay for local services. In some areas and some periods, local authorities are grouped together to form a larger, but still local authority (eg a county council and its attendant district and borough councils). In other cases an area may be served by a single unitary authority (eg a Metropolitan or City council).

The Parliamentary constituency system does not directly overlay this. Local authorities and even electoral wards can be divided between more than one constituency. Historically, the reason for the association is that the local authorities provide the polling stations and election officers for a General (parliamentary) election. My feeling is that by adding - and explaining - the local political structure, the article has gone on from being a mere List of Parliamentary constituencies for wherever. If it is still a list article, it is now List of democratic divisions in Hertfordshire or some similar name.

Dabomb87 referred me to the list of featured lists, to see if there was any precedent. The only list that I can see that is similar to this list in complexity is List of European Union member states by political system which contains a considerable amount of text, and two lists. The text explains the four different components of political system that have been taken into account (eg republic, semi-presidential, federacy, bicameral) and illustrates with maps how these are distributed, and the two tables list by form/head of state/head of government and parliamentary system with names of houses. This clearly shows that just having a substantial text component does not prevent an article from being classed as a list. However, unlike the list under review, in this case all the information provided is required to provide the stated intent of the list - ie a list of member states of the European Union differentiated by political system.

Sorry if this is a bit tl:dr, but views appreciated.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that this is not a list, but otherwise I'd say Elen has accurately reflected the situation. Opinions welcome. WFCforLife (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

List issue

I could some input on a list I created, at Talk:List of people who entered an Alford plea. RHaworth (talk · contribs) has come by and thrice now removed an entire chunk of info that I worked very very hard on researching and sourcing and writing [7], [8], [9] (note the highly inappropriate use of WP:ROLLBACK tool for that second one). RHaworth is under the impression that it is alright to abuse WP:ROLLBACK and that List pages on Wikipedia should have a one line "lede", as he put it.

From my prior experience getting a page to Featured List status, with the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, I understand that list pages are not supposed to have a one line "lede", but instead should be able to give history, overview and background to ground the reader in the topic - and be able to function as a stand-alone article. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that rollback was not used appropriately, and lists most certainly should not have one line leads as a standard. That (first) lead was a bit long though. I'll revert, as the standard for a content dispute is to let the original version remain until discussion has run its course, although I'd advise you to consider whether all of it was relevant (I didn't read it properly, it may have been). WFCforLife (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added my comments to the list's talkpage. I agree with WFCforLife that perhaps there was a little too much in the lead, but we certainly don't do "one line leads" here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_12&oldid=1171856024"