Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Minimum list length

Ok, let's bring this issue to the talk page. If lists are going to be denied because of an "unspoken rule", then that rule needs to be "spoken." We should modify criteria 3b to specifically say that there is a 10 item minimum.—NMajdan•talk

But there's not; at least I don't think so. List of Central American monkey species, which someone has been working on toward an FT, would count for me. Others disagree, but I think an article is either long enough to be an FL or short enough to be merged. Reywas92^Talk 20:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such unspoken rule. As opposed to the current wording of 3b, the 10 item minimum did not find consensus. Goodraise 22:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ten items has long been considered an arbitrary limit, but it is by no means set in stone. I will say right now as a director that "Oppose, has X number of items" by itself carries little weight. However, "Oppose, 3b because this list is too small to be separated from the main article X" is a valid oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends

This article has been at FAC for two months (almost to the day) and currently, it has no open comments and only supports. When can it be passed/failed? The Flash ^{talk} 20:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It contains one support - hardly a consensus. If no more votes are provided, it will probably be closed with no consensus. We're short a couple of our regular reviewers, so it might just be bad luck of the draw.—NMajdan•talk 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been open for one month and six days. Yes, I'll probably have to close it tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I can give it a look. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Going, going...

OK everybody, in about 12–14 hours, I will leave for my vacation. It will be very unlikely that I have Internet access, although I will definitely check up on FLC if I do. Questions, comments, and requests related to Featured lists can be directed to The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and IMatthew (talk · contribs). Keep up the good work in writing and reviewing, and Happy Holidays. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here! I'll make sure to find time on Saturdays to do some closures. iMatthew ^talk at 01:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that IMatthew. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's not a problem! :-) However I will say that if you have a question about an FLC and are looking for a quick reply, I'd go to one of the other directors, because I can't make it on here every single day. iMatthew ^talk at 01:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Requirements

Do Fls neccesarily have to be comeplete in every way? What if for example there are 20 or so major objects in something, but 200 or so minor ones? ResMar 16:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The featured list criteria state that a featured list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". Goodraise 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific example you're referring to? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• One major criteria, obviously, is whether the list can ever really be considered "complete". List of brain tumor patients is my usual example here, as certainly you'll never have every patient on Earth listed there and even just among those notable enough to get a WP article I doubt we'd ever complete it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking, specifically, about splitting Hawaii hotspot#Volcanoes of the hotspot in List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount chain. It has every major volcano in the chain, ae that have been named and studied at least partially, however a quick look on the Earthref seamount catalog gives scores more. ResMar 21:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, if you can specify an objective criterion or set of criteria for what is considered "major", then I see no reason that a "List of major volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount chain" couldn't easily exist. The minor volcanoes could later become their own list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

With geology there is (almost) no critereon. Nothing I can think of that isn't too selective or too expansive. Perhaps the solution would be to try to ascribe all of these? Would 200 redlinks be acceptable? :) ResMar 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Prrrrrobably not ("it has a minimal proportion of red links" from criterion 5a). There are no criteria such as size, time of discovery (which would have allowed for more study), that could be used? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I can think of, no. ResMar 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I think the main Hotspot article was great, more complete, and more comprehensive when it included the list of volcanoes. Reywas92^Talk 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing the list doesn't make that article "less comprehensive", because the list is a daughter article and is technically a sub-list of that main article. I didn't look to see how the breakout was done, but there should still be some remnants of the list in that original section. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

Hello everyone. This has been coming for a while, perhaps. I'm resigning as a FLC director, as of January 1st, 2010. I don't see my schedule getting lighter in the new year, and whenever I'm on Wikipedia in 2010, I'll be doing WikiCup tasks. I'd like to thank Scorpion0422, Matthewedwards, TRM, Dabomb, and Giants2008 for all of their help while I worked as a FLC director/delegate. Going on from here, I'd suggest pulling Giants2008 up to director, should he accept the position. Happy Holidays! iMatthew ^talk at 14:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Giants2008 should be promoted to director.—Chris!_c/t 19:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you iMatthew for all your contributions to the process. I think Giants2008 would make a great director. On the topic, I had been hoping to contribute more next year, but I got my schedule, and it's no better than this year's. So, I likely won't be able to contribute what I like until May. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, we're going to have to be really careful that this doesn't become like Picadilly Circus. While iMatthew has contributed, we really don't need the ins and outs in directorate/delegate that we've seen over the past nine months or so. I'd agree that Giants2008 would make a superb director but, as ever, the good directors are usually the eagle-eyed reviewers. Without reviewers the process is dead. WP:FAC seems to manage with Raul alone. This then lets others to provide real-deal reviews, together with supports/opposes or otherwise. We're now slowly heading to a point where the only people giving complete reviews are the directors themselves. No offence to our other major contributors, but we've usually looked for a majority of three or four to promote a list. Now we'd most likely need one or two, given the (minimal) volume of traffic we get at FLC. My upshot is that we can't continually recycle directors. What can be done? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Truco to the rescue :) Since I can't review as much anymore due to my schedule I can easily manage to close nominations on the scheduled days, if that is of any help. --Truco ₅₀₃ 21:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to resume doing reviews; I've just been swamped lately. Also, if we are in desperate need of directors (note "desperate") I can give a hand. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just my opinion but I'd rather we kept our exemplary core of reviewers as just that, exemplary reviewers. We shouldn't burden them with other things. Not being able to support/oppose is a big deal for a serious reviewer. If we all became directors, then not one single list would promote. We've got two weeks before Dabomb87 comes back. My suggestion is we just keep going as we are, I'll close when I can, Giants can cover the things I'm involved in, then in the New Year we'll see where we stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can say that in my time as a temp delegate, my reviewing activity has actually increased. I'm doing all the full reviews that I would have done otherwise, and I'm taking looks at lists I never would have touched otherwise, to ensure quality in case I'm needed to close them. Of course, the trade-off is that my supporting of lists has completely disappeared. The current period strikes me as a good test to see whether FLC can run smoothly with just two closers, or whether gridlock will result (keep in mind that as a temp, I try to lean conservative with any closures I do). One note: Raul almost never closes FACs anymore; delegates SandyGeorgia and Karanacs split the load. Oh, and thanks to IMatthew for his service. Here's hoping that you can get involved in FLC again if your schedule lightens up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi all. It's disappointing to hear about IMatthew's resignation, but I hope FLC can survive for another week; I should be back in business by next Saturday. I wish I could do something useful here, but the computer I am on is so slow that all I can do is check in. Cheers, Dabomb87Public (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're still "with us" Dabomb! Keep enjoying your vacation. As for FLC, well we're really suffering from lack of reviewers right now. I've just "failed" three FLCs which have been open for well over a month that just didn't get sufficient interest, which is a real shame. So anyhow, just a quick note from me to say that I'm not resigning as a director, and even more so I'll do my best to get the lists I haven't reviewed done by close of play tomorrow. I am, however, leaving, on a jet plane, Monday morning and will be off-wiki until Saturday. So please, stay patient and keep reviewing. Happy festive period to you all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Failed because of lack of reviews

I just realized (with List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)) that FLC can be failed which I was not aware of. (Maybe a notice on nominators' talk pages before nominations are closed would be an idea.) Since all comments of three reviewers had been addressed, it is very sad. In fact I was hoping to get up all lists in Lists of National Treasures of Japan to featured quality one day, but now I am not sure it is worth the work if the candidacy fails for reasons I cannot influence. At present there are four lists which would have good chances at FLC: List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines), List of National Treasures of Japan (residences), List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) and the just failed List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings). Shall I bother to nominate any of them? bamse (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently we're experiencing a very low volume of reviewers. I couldn't allow nominations to persist forever, and sometimes, quite often in fact, restarting FLCs has a positive effect on them. You are perfectly entitled to relist the nomination. Notes forewarning of closures on nominator's talk pages wouldn't achieve much since it's all about getting more reviews without canvassing. The FLC instructions should have given you an idea that lists wouldn't sit around forever... Don't be put off, keep plugging away, and hopefully your lists will get the attention they truly deserve. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely nominators could be notified so that they could seek reviews from neutral third parties? I don't see a problem with an editor approaching an experienced user asking for a review, stating that the nomination has stalled in the absence of input, as long as the nominator does not try to solicit a straight support. Even an actionable oppose can be useful as once resolved it shows to other reviewers that the article is being actively improved and may attract interest. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This really is the responsibility of the nominators. If I nominated a list and received no comments for 10 days, I'd either ask the directors or someone else to look at it, not expect to be prompted. If you nominate something at FLC, you should be keeping a close eye on it. And in direct response to Nev1, of course, actionable opposes are better than silence. We're struggling for reviewers, it's that simple. I try to review every single list as a director, but it's not up to the directors to chase up nominators and reviewers... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point that it shouldn't the responsibility of the director, but perhaps nominators don't realise that they can ask impartial people for reviews? It's sometimes a problem among the less experienced nominators at FAC. In all though, lacking regular reviewers is a problem. Nev1 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a real problem. Okay, so perhaps I'll talk it through with Dabomb87 and Giants2008, see if we can an impartial way of modifying the FLC instructions to "help" the nominators. I have received a few requests over the past year or two to help out with stalled nominations, after all the directors are here to help, but they can't hold hands all the way, not with 35 concurrent FLCs (which was about 60 when I started)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Who would count as impartial? Should I post a message on a Wikiproject's talk page asking for reviews, or approach people directly? If I contact potential reviewers directly should they be editors of articles of a related field as the list in question or rather not? bamse (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that, as long as you approached anyone impartially, asking for a review then you could choose just about anyone. Wikiprojects are a great place to start. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

bamse, please also do note that my closing comment on your list was "a hefty and (in my opinion) very good list, just lacking reviews"... so there was no negativity over the quality. I want the community to provide a consensus, not just me... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your comment. My message was not addressed against you. I just wanted to express my surprise that the candidacy was closed suddenly. Probably it is due to my inexperience with the review process. If I restart the candidacy of the same list, do the old comments/votes still count or do I need to get three new votes? bamse (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that with a restarted nomination, your previous supporters would be quick to support again (you are free to notify them "neutrally" that an FLC has been restarted, of course) and with luck we'll get more interest in your particular FLC. Please do not be discouraged, your list is very good, to some, perhaps, dauntingly so! Keep going with the process, and we'll all do our best to seek a successful outcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks everybody for the feedback. I guess I should wait until the old candidacy has been archive, right? bamse (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a growing problem at FLC. The closers can't promote anything to FL status if there is no consensus from reviewers to do so. We desperately need more reviewers, but every other content review process can say the same. As for the instructions, if any wording changes are carefully considered to avoid the possibility of canvassing, I see no reason not to make them. We have a list of review volunteers, which is currently under-utilized. Perhaps if the instructions are modified, a link to this list could be provided, assuming it is properly updated? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an increasing problem on wikipedia in general. There's people to write and discuss, but so few to review, and I have no idea where to find these reviewers. Wizardman 04:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I re-nominated the list and asked the wikiprojects "Japan" and "Visual Arts" for help. Looking forward to lots of reviews. bamse (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hello, List of Wii games is currently implementing a new format, but before such a task truly gets underway I am looking for suggestions on what is the best presentation/layout for this massive list. My sandbox has one based on List of Nintendo 64 games. Also, there have been discussions on merging List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller, but I'm not certain if that should be done. « ₣M₣ » 06:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup participation

Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

New director?

This edit by Mm40 named me as a director, replacing IMatthew. However, I see no consensus above that indicates I was about to be granted such a position. TRM actually says that he wanted to wait until Dabomb87 returns before making any decision on a third director. For a position that carries such great responsibility, we should be absolutely sure that everyone here knows about a potential new director and has had an opportunity to voice their opinions on the editor. What do the contributors here think about this development? In particular, what do TRM and Dabomb, the current directors, have to say? (may be a few days before they can answer) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there isn't consensus yet. As such I've modified the instructions (based on an old version) to a state what, I believe, reflects the current situation. I think it can stay like this until a decision is made for sure (probably when Dabomb returns). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks more accurate, although it will need to changed again shortly if I'm not retained as a delegate or director (I was under the impression that I was a temporary fill-in). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I think I misinterpreted this discussion, as well as Giants2008's recent promotions/archivings, as him having that role permanently. Mm40 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Giants being either, but, once again, it'd be better if the community decided on that. Giants' reviews are much more important than his closure of lists as far as I'm concerned right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Impending announcement: silliest wikilink of the month awards

Users are advised that His Grace the Duke of Waltham has agreed to be the inaugural judge of the Silliest wikilink of the month awards. There will be five monthly winners (August–December 2009) and an overall winner for 2009.

His Grace will make the announcement at WT:LINK when He is ready. The Duke's private secretary, Harold Cartwright, has emphasised that no correspondence will be entered into regarding the awards: His Grace's decision will be final. Tony (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The announcement has been made here. Tony (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm back

Hello all. I'm back at home and ready to attack FLC. Hope you all had a good Christmas, New Year, etc. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Video spoof

I saw this video on the FAC talk page; very humorous. Although it specifically deals with FAC, it's applicable to here, and makes a reference to featured lists. Thought some of you might be interested. Mm40 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an outrageous off-wiki attack on central processes of WP: FAC, FLC, MoS. Tony (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Minimum for FL

I'm trying to find exactly where the minimum number of entries a FL should have. Are 13 entries too few for FL? NThomas (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Minimum's 10, so 13 is fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While 10 is often a handy rule of thumb, the wording of the relevant criterion is "it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" (emphasis added). If the list looks on the short side, you'll need to explain why the topic is best covered in a short-ish list rather than by the list being included in a parent article. Bencherlite^Talk 07:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the help! NThomas (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC not transcluded

I just noticed Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan monarchs/archive1 from last month, which is not transcluded on this page. What should be done in a situation like this? Should it be transcluded now and the period of discussion extended, or what? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've transcluded the FLC and left a note so I know when the FLC was actually transcluded on the nomination page. I'll probably let it run for the duration of a normal FLC (which these days is about a month). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Standardised naming

Currently, Category:Lists of awards by award winner and its subcategories are fairly standardised and consistent in the List of awards and nominations received by ***subject*** format. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#List of awards and honors about trying to change this standard. As something that affects lots of existing FLs and future candidates I'm sure opinion would be welcomed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup disclosures

Speaking as a director, I would appreciate it if all nominators would disclose their participation in the WikiCup. Similarly, if reviewers could disclose that they are in the WikiCup when they are reviewing WikiCup nominations that would be nice as well. No obligation, but that would make things a bit easier. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied it over to the wikicup talk page as well. WFCforLife (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I apologize, I'm a Wikicup competitor. I think I've been fair in my reviews and such, LMK if you think otherwise and I'll check in! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not too worried about WikiCup competitors who are FL regulars; I know that they usually give fair reviews and submit well-prepared nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem regarding FL United States Secretary of Energy‎

Sorry that is isn't about an FLC, but I think it is relevant. At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/United States Secretary of Transportation/archive1, I was told to add the political parties of the people on the list, so I did so. I also added them to the FL United States Secretary of Energy‎ and added better images, only to be undone by William S. Saturn (talk · contribs), who bluntly called it useless. I have had previous problems with this person reverting my constructive edits to this article, most of which included having full-size images in the table rather than cropped, oval images in the table in conjunction with redundant thumbnails on the side. One revert of his was restoring it "back to FL quality", which is an abolutely nonsense claim because nothing makes an FL perfect and immutable (and is why I brought this here). Another time he reverted claiming "undo disruption" and another without a reason.

I have tried to communicate with him, but he rudely ignores and reverts me, saying "couldn't care less". Can someone please give a third opinion about the FL and help with this? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this FL was passed nearly 3 years ago, the standards are much higher today. I restored Reywas' edit and requested in my edit summary that William S. Saturn respond on the article talk page instead of reverting. If he reverts again, you can ask his opinion on his talk page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. To "undo" that particular edit with such an unpleasant edit summary was certainly unnecessary. Persevere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My advice is to start a discussion on the article's talk page. While it was uncivil, he could argue that he has not done anything wrong. The best thing you can do is attempt to engage in dialogue on the article's talk page; if that doesn't work, at least you have tried. WFCforLife (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but just because something is suggested during an FLC doesn't mean it will make it to the end of that FLC. I suggest that you hold off on making changes to other articles based on something suggested during an FLC, as it may end up not a great idea, or end up flesh out more and then you'll just be doubling efforts on other pages. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the format on the article about the Transportation secretary (which is not FL) have to change the format on an article about the Energy secretary (which is FL)? If anything, the Transportation secretary article should conform to the Energy secretary article. I noticed on numerous pages that the OP likes to go around and force his personal preference on articles. This is not very constructive, but instead frustrated for numerous other editors (myself included). --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

William, the Transportation Secretary list is a featured list candidate, which means that if it is to pass, it is subject to the more stringent current FL criteria. All featured lists are expected to conform to those criteria. No article is perfect, and all articles will continue to evolve as their content and the criteria change. Reywas' edits are perfectly within the realms of the current FL criteria and have not harmed the list in any way. In all of my dealings with him, I have never found him to be any less than a pleasure to work with. If you have an issue with his work, I suggest you discuss it directly with him, not here in an open forum. For the purpose of this discussion, there was nothing wrong with his edits, and if you disagree, you should discuss that on the article's talk page, rather than making uncivil comments in your edit summaries. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

William reverted Killervogel's edit saying "I don't think so buddy, YOU need to discuss on the talk page before making changes". It sure seems like he thinks he owns the article, and it's funny since, as I mentioned above, he "couldn't care less" when I tried to talk to him. I brought it up on the talk page, so opinions on the parties and images are welcome. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, it's worth noting that William Saturn was recently blocked for edit warring and was unblocked after a pledge to "edit cooperatively". I assume good faith within as much reason as I can provide, but this appears uncooperative to say the least. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Mr Saturn may not have been aware that we have radically updated our standards here at FL since the list he is protective over was promoted. Perhaps he could be advised as to the relevant changes, it may assist him in understanding why a current, heavily-reviewed FLC is much more likely to be up to scratch than a three-year-old FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I'll outline below the changes Reywas made and the reasons why they are in line with the current criteria:

• The new images provided are no longer uniform, but perfect conformity isn't a goal of the featured list process.
• Adding the parties is, in my view, a necessary part of the process. For example, it is notable when a Republican secretary serves under a Democratic president, or vice versa.
• The format of the list, with the images before the name, is one that is applied fairly consistently throughout many US government FLs, most notably List of Presidents of the United States.
• The duplicated images are redundant to what is already shown in the table; removing them allows more information to be put in the table, giving the whole list more utility. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of the FL process, if it's not about maintaining wikipedia's policies? My edits were based upon the core principles of wikipedia. I don't know what the edits of the OP or others on this page were based upon. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk about a complete disregard of policy. Do you people still observe WP:Overlink? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

William, please observe a civil tone. Tables are one of many listed exceptions to the rules on overlinking, as each row of a table should be able to stand on its own (see also WP:LINK#Repeated links). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:OVERLINK. In sortable tables, we do not know which instance of the term will come first because the order of items can be changed many times by sorting. Therefore, it is easier to link each instance. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What basis in policy do you have to change articles around as you see fit (Note that I have already grounded the article's former FL status in policy on the talk page)? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you require a policy-based argument, I might direct you to WP:BOLD and WP:5P, as the ability to "change articles around" is the whole point of Wikipedia. Any good-faith changes, as long as they are made within established guidelines as these were, are accepted. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not to mention that linking every instance of something in a table does not violate OVERLINK. See Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award, Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award, Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award, and 30 Rock (season 3). And those are just FLs which I've written. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking was simply an example. What in policy are the changes to the article based upon? NPOV? Weight? RS? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be presuming, but it seems obvious to me that the changes were made in order to improve the article, based on feedback from a number of reviews. You don't need a "policy" to improve an article with consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then maybe that's the difference between now and 2007. In 2007, all edits I made to the article were based upon wikipedia policies. How can you "improve" an article without adhering to any specific policy? How is the reorganization and implementation of inconsistent images, "improvement"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

By your definition of improving articles, copy-editing articles for redundant wording and clarity must be pointless, since none of the Wikipedia policies relates to prose quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy-editing is good for WP:V and WP:TONE for WP:NPOV. Please stay on subject. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all copy-editing improves an article with regard to WP:V or WP:NPOV; I was under the impression that we were talking about policies, which WP:TONE is not. If you included "guidelines", my overlinking example would not be as useless as you were making it out to be. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) By the way, creating featured content is more than just writing content that adheres to our policies. It is possible to write a stub that is verifiable and NPOV, but nobody would say it was featured article material. Featured articles require professional-quality articles (brilliant prose, high-quality sources), not just articles of acceptable quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is your point? Inconsistency is "brilliant"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No. What "inconsistency" are you referring to? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If we were writing a physical encyclopaedia, we would decide on one good format, and stick to it for the whole book. But we're not. We're writing an online, instantly upgradeable one. Now I openly admit to not being a fantastic writer, so let's stick to issues primarily related to lists. When more useful features (such as the sort function) become technically possible, we upgrade our content. When we identify ways in which we can make our content more accessible (such as adding alt text, or helping the colorblind), we upgrade our content. Whether or not an "upgrade" is "useful" is obviously subject to debate. The generally held belief is that these edits were a good thing, but that might change after discussion.

William, I completely agree with you about the need for consistency. Without co-ordination, wikipedia is prone to a lack of it. But the strength of wikipedia is that we have the ability to do things that books cannot, the sort function being a classic example. With the right co-ordination we can introduce these sorts of things whilst maintaining uniformity. WFCforLife (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about consistency within the article. If you don't use the standard official image for all, then for some you are displaying the image they favor, but not for all. This is a blatant violation of NPOV. If you blow up the images real huge, you are taking away from content and making it harder to read together. If you remove (different) images to the side of the list, not only are you disrupting the article asthetically, you are ignoring significant feats being highlighted (but of course you can hide that in the lead and not give it due weight). --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I share your view about the use of official images (the oval ones). I would like to see those restored. Although I'm less sure how additional images on the side help. I agree that they're aesthetically pleasing, but their use in previous revisions somewhat undermines the uniformity argument. For instance, I can see that Schlesinger was the first, that O'Leary is a woman, and that Chu is of oriental descent. These are not revelationary facts, nor do the images themselves convey something substantially different. WFCforLife (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem with the portraits either. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have completely made up these concerns. How do the images take away from the content? The table sure seems plenty readable with the pics at that size, but that matters to me less. While a couple of the images on the side were different, most were just the full version of the ovals. Since I have a small computer display, the side images are extremely disruptive because they force significant whitespace before getting to the table. What due weight? They are simple statements that so-and-so was the first whatever secretary; a mention is the lead is enough weight, and they are in absolutely no way buried in only two lead paragraphs. What the heck makes the ovals the "standard official image...they favor"? They simply happen to be that way on the DOE website. The standard official image is the full one without the frame. There is only one secretary without the original official photo, and I have contacted DOE and NARA to find it. The ovals, which I find extremely aesthetically displeasing, are not the original official images. Reywas92^Talk 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm guilty of this too, but any further discussion about the article should go on its talk page, not here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

New MOS template

Users are advised that a Template:MOS has been created for use at that top of articles that have significant compliance problems. It can be inserted simply as:

{{MOS}}

However, the date of posting should normally be included, thus:

{{MOS|date=January 2010}}

to render this:

Thanks to User:Ohconfucius for arranging this. Tony (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm baaaaaaaaaaack!

Or not. In any case, for those of you who do remember me, nice to see you again, and I apologize for leaving with practically no notice whatsoever -- I required a much-needed break. For those of you who don't, I was once one of the FLRC delegates, and apparently still rank third at WP:WBFLN, which comes at a surprise given that everyone else had a few months to pass me up. Anyhow, I was simply curious, seeing as I was rightly removed as a FLRC delegate, whether there is still a need for my services, whether someone is handling the issue, or whether I'm so out of touch with current issues that waiting for a while would be best. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto! Welcome back, Seph! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Double ditto! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if we had dozens and dozens of reviewers (which we don't), there would still be need for your services. Welcome back. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks

I have no intention on reopening the question of whether redlinks should be part of the FL criteria. But can someone clarify how the "minimal proportion of redlinks" requirement works in practise?

Here's a hypothetical example. I create a brand spanking new sports player list. Let's say for arguments sake there are a total of 600 entries. Ignoring players who are not linked at all (due to failing WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTY/N, there will be roughly a 50/50 split between blue and redlinked players by the time I'm finished. Although continuing with that estimate, >90% of the total link count is going to be blue. Would that be regarded as a minimal proportion? Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the practice, the burden of deciding exactly how much is minimal is placed on the individual reviewer. No-one here will be able to give you a percentage value and guaranty that you won't meet red-link based opposition during an FLC. Personally, I wouldn't oppose a list for having anything less than 50% red links, not because I think that's fine, but because the wording can be interpreted to allow for that many. On a side note though, if a person is not notable (in the WP:N sense), then they should not be linked at all, neither red nor blue. Goodraise 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if a person has an article, I tend to link to it ;). Good point on non-notable redlinks though. WFCforLife (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Goodraise. What constitutes a "minimal proportion" of redlinks should be decided by reviewer consensus on each FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-linking

I'm not crazy active here, so this might be a dumb question, but... is there a reason that the preloaded content for an FLC page creates a link to itself? The worst part about it is that it isn't included in transclusions (the only place it would be useful). Jujutacular ^T · C 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The link is to the article page, not the FLC. I always thought that's a useful link. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There's the link to the article page, but also a link to the FLC page itself. Take a look at my recenty opened: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Florida/archive1. Below "Nominators: Jujutacular" is a self-link. That link is not included on transclusions. Jujutacular ^T · C 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's where all the FLC's for that page are listed. Not much use of it's the first one, but if it's the second nomination or later, it'll show links to all the previous noms as well. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)/archive2 for example. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, I see. That makes more sense. Many thanks for the kind help. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem of citation templates

They've become part of the landscape, but we believe it's time to assess whether they are a net advantage to the project. The discussion is here. Tony (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More general, already somewhat advanced discussion already in progress at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style --Cybercobra (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move Wikipedia:Featured lists to portal namespace

An editor has requested that WP:FL is moved to Portal:FL. Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Requested move for the discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Potential for List of Texas Tech University buildings

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Potential for List of Texas Tech University buildings. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Dodgers first-round draft picks/archive1 for staleness

I don't think the idea of closures due to staleness is pure evil, WP:FPC does it. But I don't really get it, since assuming the staleness is lack of reviewers and not nominator disappearing I'm just going to renominate it after a few days and have to pester TRM to revote and then likely wait another month or more to have been open long enough to draw new reviews anyways. Plus this has hardly been done consistently, the current oldest FLC is Washington State Symbols, an FLC started nearly 2 weeks prior to this Dodgers list. Why close something due to a lack of reviews before ever once making mention of it as something needing reviews in the various special notice boxes? I get that trimming back the backlog is an ongoing goal, but this doesn't really so much solve the problem as just make next week worse (and really add +1 FLC for far longer than is needed, since now this Dodgers list will need to regain the seniority of nomination to draw the reviewers who tend to work only on the oldest noms). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Heck, looking at the list again List of Saw media has:

• A. No support votes. In fact it has an oppose. (Dodgers list had one support, and quite recent)
• B. Just 1 real review, plus one short discussion of About.com. (Dodgers list had one real review and one small bit of comments from Giants)
• C. Latest review (from you, who never touched the Dodgers list) came 2 days earlier than TRM's capping and supporting, meaning it's 2 days stale-r.
• D. And just to finish it, despite a week since that review from you, the nominator hasn't replied to any of those points in the FLC, making it truly stale (whilst I happily respond to any FLC posting ASAP).

(edit conflict)In every way that FLC is staler, less (or at least similiarly) reviewed, less supported, and the nominator less responsive. I have nothing against Saw media, but it serves as another example of the odd way this is executed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case, I could not close the Washington symbols list because I had supported it and therefore recused from closing it. It is unfortunate that some noms got closed despite never really receiving many reviews, but that's just the consequence of a backlogged FLC page; sometimes it's just the luck of the draw and reviewers don't notice a certain FLC for some reason. I'm sorry that the list was not listed at any of the backlog pages, but I can't handle FLC on my own; hopefully other FLC regulars can take it upon themselves to occasionally update the closure log (at the top of this page) and the backlog box at the top of the nomination list at WP:FLC.

Post-edit conflict: I'm recused on the Saw media FLC as well, so I didn't consider closing it. Perhaps TRM can make decisions on those FLCs when he gets the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Reform

As there are now 59 nominations, most of them languishing from a lack of reviews, it seems evident that some sort of change is needed. This is partially inspired by this RfC at FAC. We might borrow some suggestions from them. However, as the biggest issue is a simple lack of reviewers, I think the directors may need to be more aggressive about promotion and archival.

Also, as SandyGeorgia said at that discussion, I think some FLCs are becoming peer reviews (at least when I review). I encourage all reviewers to be more willing to oppose when they see issues that should have been resolved before hand. As I'm half-asleep and I doubt what I said made much sense, I'll let the discussion proceed now. Mm40 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the WikiCup may be the issue. I'm going to go through and note all WikiCup nominations so we get a better gage. Mm40 (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we display a notice about mentioning the WikiCup in the nomination somewhere? Perhaps in the editnotice that appears when creating the nomination page. Not everyone submitting an FLC is a regular here, and can't be expected to know about it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That would work; The notes I'm adding are more for us so we can figure out how much of an issue it is. Mm40 (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So I've finished going through, and I count 18 WikiCup nominations, almost a third of the total. Four nominators have two up at once. Mm40 (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN also has a big backlog. Such schemes which do not encourage people to spend as much time reviewing other peoples contributions as is spent reviewing their own are a damned nuisance.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory reviewing has been suggested in every review area of WP: FAC, GAN, PR, DYK even. The consensus is that forced reviews won't be of any quality, just "Support, looks good". Also, some people are good writers, others are good reviewers. Mm40 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I try to review in fields I feel comfortable wherever possible, but as a Wikicup competitor I think we have to be careful to be clear that the Wikicup is simply a contributing source of noms, not a "problem". For myself, at least, I am a Cup competitor but I don't put something forward until I feel it's ready. I also tried to back off a bit when I had a huge bulk of noms up (though AL pennant winners was a necessity due to FTC issues), though with AL pennant winners winding down (4 full fledged supports, no real comments left to deal with), I do have a new sandboxed article almost complete and ready to nom. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into a big contentious debate, and this is not meant to be an all inclusive statement but I think I have a reason why there is such a large backlog. The easiest way I can say it is that a lot of editors are discouraged from participating as reviewers and often times as submitters. Although I have had fairly good results and a mostly positive experience I have also, from time to time, met with less than desirable results from reviewers. The bottomline is that WP can be at times rather dramatic and some editors tend to get s bit snippy in their reviews of others work. For example rather than simply state the problems in an article or give an idea of the needed improvemtns I have seen articles quick failed with no comments whatsoever or the submitter, reviewer is insulted at their lack of attention to detail. I have seen some pretty discouraging comments of late in some reviews that made me shake my head honestly. I also believe that the reason more editors are submitting as GA, A, FLC or FA rather than peer review is because they tend to get better results. I personnally have had very little luck with peer review and on more than one occassion had an article leave peer review with 1 or 2 reviews with minor changes or suggestions and then the article gets crushed at FA. Just my thoughts but I believe that it is at least part of the larger problem. --Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

During the summer, reviews were flying in ever nomination. The list was just down to 30 max, but maintained itself in the 20s. When myself, KLV, SER.LAK, and Dabomb among others would fly by each list mainly because they were already good to go, unlike some that are coming here for the first time (mainly due to the WikiCup). I like the idea, however, of aggressive reviewing, it would clear the backlog and like Sandy said, this isn't a peer-review its a nomination review. IMO, the WikiCup should be suspeneded until each summer.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My first nom, made approximately a week after I joined, was awful with the benefit of hindsight. However, it did pass, because I had a pretty comprehensive review. My second was mediocre to start with, but importantly I learned from that first, comprehensive review, and did not make the same mistakes. Again, it improved during the review. My third one will be far better (and longer). The point is that I simply would not have gotten those results with Peer Review. There are some great reviewers out there (I've been very lucky to have had BrianBolton twice in consecutive PRs), but it's not as intense. I do understand the calls for making the process tougher, but we need to keep it accessible to newbies. We should actively encourage peer review-like noms for their first and second reviews, but then consider get tougher on substandard noms from people who really should know better.

Finally, I would like to propose the banning of all non-wikicup participants from these processes. There is no reason or evidence for doing so, but as long as you use the word wikicup in a derogatory sentence these things are not required. WFCforLife (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WFC, I'm not sure what you mean by "Finally, I would like to propose the banning of all non-wikicup participants from these processes. There is no reason or evidence for doing so, but as long as you use the word wikicup in a derogatory sentence these things are not required." What "processes" are your referring to? I don't think anyone is portraying the WikiCup in a negative light; it's just an well-supported opinion that nominations are up during the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny that wikicup has a big effect on the number of nominations. But I have a problem with the suggestion that wikicup noms are substandard, or indeed that wikicup is a drain on FLC. I've submitted one this year, and have probably done 2 or 3 comprehensive reviews and 3 or 4 brief ones in that time. According to the table (which may be a few days out of date), the other editors to have submitted FLs at wikicup are 03md, Arsennik, Chamal_N, Reywas, Scorpion and Stax, most of whom put in a lot of time here. WFCforLife (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"But I have a problem with the suggestion that wikicup noms are substandard, or indeed that wikicup is a drain on FLC." I'm sorry if I implied that in my comments. Nominations are always good (we want editors to improve articles), except when an editor has more than a couple FLCs running at the same time. FLC submission freezes, like the one I put in for a brief period late last year, are a extreme last resort, and I'll probably never consider it again. Returning to the original issues raised: perhaps the directors do need to be more aggressive in closing nominations; I've been compiling statistics about how FLC reviews have changed, and I hope to finish that up soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the closers should take a more liberal closing approach, in both directions. If a list has three or so supports and has no outstanding issues, there's no reason it shouldn't be promoted after 10 days, especially when you consider the reviewer shortage of late. On the other hand, lists really shouldn't be at FLC for a month and a half, a mark that a few of the lists at the bottom are currently threatening. Anytime the number of nominations creeps up like this in any review process, it seems to result in fewer reviews; it's almost as if the total becomes overwhelming for possible reviewers. I remember us having many more reviewers when we were consistently at 30 to 40 noms. Whatever the directors can sensibly do to lessen this effect would be welcome. (While I'm here, I'm still listed as a delegate in the instructions, dating back to Dabomb's vacation. Anyone want to take care of that?) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Giants, I've commented your name out in the instructions, though if TRM or I have to leave Wiki for a time, you are welcome to step up in the interim.

On another note, I will definitely try to be more "liberal" in determining which lists are ready for promotion/archival from now on. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a recommendation but maybe we could have some sort of FLC checklist, in addition to the criteria to assist submitters in determining if the list is "ready". And I have to admit that I have submitted some that were better than others so I am certainly just as guilty as anyone. an example could look something like the good article template.Or maybe like this:

Lead

1. Does the lead give a complete summery of the article

References

1. Does the list contain inline citations
2. Do the citations follow one of the standards
3. Do the citations contain all the elements of a reference (title, author, url, date, accessdate, publisher, etc)
4. Have all dead links been replaced

Alt text

1. Do the images contain alt text

Table

1. is the table properly formatted
2. Do empty cells contain a -
3. is the table sortable

Etc, Etc, Etc. It might also be helpful to check it with AWB. Obviously these are not all inclusive and it would certainly be impossible to capture every possible item but I think if we all put our heads together we can come up with something beyond the little toolbox that you only get after you submit the article(unless you know how to get to it without it).--Kumioko (talk)

I don't think the problem is that lists are unprepared, but that there's more nominations than reviewers. In reviewing, I rarely find major issues (complete lack of references, no sortability), but a lot of minor issues (periods in fragmented captions, acronyms used once, etc.). I know my nominations have been aided by doing reviews because I recognize the minor things that hold FLCs up. One example is this, promoted in 21 days when most lists take over a month. Perhaps we can add to the instructions something like: "It may be helpful to look at ongoing FLCs and check that the issues brought up are not present in your nomination." Mm40 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, reviewers are certainly welcome to "categorize" their comments in reviews (for example, see Truco's review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Memorial Cup champions/archive1). I don't think we need to make anything formal like checklists, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely true that repeat nominators benefit from their past FLC experiences, especially when they submit FLCs in a series, where they can fix issues that appeared in previous noms so they are not raised anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A while ago, when FLC was drifting slowly towards becoming another WP:PR, I instigated several "quick-fails". I'm beginning to think this approach may be of use for some of the lists that are nominated way before they're ready. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the quick-fail process is a good idea. I have seen many, many lists that aren't ready that spend a lot of time here because they don't go through a peer review. PR certainly isn't a perfect process, but it helps to catch a lot of issues before arriving here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the concept. Although if an editor has taken all reasonable steps (learnt from previous FLCs where applicable, gone to peer review and actioned any feedback), I'd be against quick failing in those circumstances. In that instance, a failed FLC would still be a productive one. WFCforLife (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think quick-fail should only be used in extreme situation, but not on a regular basis.—Chris!_c/t 19:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the page header should encourage first-time nominators or nominators of a new style/format of list to use peer review. I know it already says that PR is available, but I don't know if it would be worth it to point it out. Every time I've nominated a "new style" of list for FLC, it has gone through a peer review as well (except for my first nomination, when I knew nothing about the FLC process before showing up, hence my recommendation). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The cleanse

(outdent) Well, I just finished today's round of closures: 3 promoted, 12 failed. The large number of unsuccessful noms is disappointing, to be sure, but hopefully the backlog won't rise again for a while. I tried to be more "aggressive" in archiving old nominations that had little support while promoting nominations that might not have had a boatload of support but were still ready to go. Feedback is appreciated: was I too harsh, too soft, just right? What can be done to keep the backlog down in the future (aside from more reviewers)? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think backlogs, while admittedly imposing, are being misunderstood a bit. This reminds me of a story that came up repeatedly in my summer job last year, working with criminal justice statistics in CT. One of the big areas we looked at was parole, and one of the big issues there was that Governor Jodi Rell had briefly (for a few months) completely shut down the parole process following a brutal home invasion murder because the criminals involved had been recently paroled. The goal was to review the process or whatever, but eventually the nozzle had to be turned back on (or the prison system would start overflowing). Stopping the process hadn't magically made the prisoners with legitimate parole cases go away, but now that several-month bottleneck of people were stacked on top of the day's normal parole candidates and the whole system saw a great big giant bubble.

That's all well and good for a parole system, the parole board can just hold more hearings to get through those added cases. But here, our reviewers are clearly the limiting reagent in this process. My point is that stopping (or in this case resetting) the process does very little to actually quell the backlog, it merely shifts it down the road. Nominations which languish with serious problems without nominator should be failed, but that's a matter of increasing the aggressiveness of closures by the directors (maybe no response within a week without specific notes about a vacation or something = auto-fail close?). But legitimate nominations by active nominators don't go away simply because you fail them to clear the backlog. They simply make the March 2010 backlog even worse, shifting some of the Feburary 2010 problem forward a bit. I think the number 1 thing you can do is what I said above, aggressive auto-failing for inactive nominators. Beyond that maybe a softer choke, say if you already have noms up you can't nom more without serious reviews of other noms would help. But ultimately I would say don't take action against a backlog just to shore up numbers, as it merely compounds the problem. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(I've yet to read Stax's comments) The 15 closures, along with another 2 or 3 that The Rambling Man can do, were necessary. It was either close aggressively, be aggressive on new nominations, or find an innovative way to get more reviews. This was the only one of the three that has yet to be tried, and while perhaps harsh on the people who happened to be in that situation, on the whole it's been done fairly well.

Stax's closure was harsh. Although it's worth noting that the last time a list was closed in those circumstances (TRM closing one of Bamse's Treasures lists) the second nomination was listed on the noticeboard with a two sentence explanation of the situation. It received several reviews and passed very quickly. WFCforLife (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to Stax- I pretty much agree. From what I've seen of three or four others, I think yours was an isolated case that shouldn't have been closed. Most of the others seem to have been closed broadly along those lines. WFCforLife (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I want to make clear, by the way (not saying you're saying I am, just adding this on), I'm not crying to get that closure undone. As I noted to Dabomb on his talk page, if anything it may be a teeny tiny aid for myself looking at it selfishly as this will virtually guarantee me an FL credit for the second round of the Wikicup whilst it would simply pad my already qualifying score for Round 1 if it had passed in the next couple days. I've just never been a fan of lack-of-reviewer closures for the reasons I outlined above. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it should be undone- that would set a bad precident. Although a by-product of a harsh closure tends to be a well-reviewed second nomination. WFCforLife (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback – it seems my closure of the Dodgers FLC was in error; I'll try to be more careful in the future (and hopefully, as I've said in other places, I won't have to fail that many noms again). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN or FL candidate?

Just a a quick question. Following a discussion in Talk:List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War#Should_not_be_at_GAN should List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War be a GAN or directly brought to FL candidates? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists and articles are two distinct things; a list cannot be a good article as it is inherently not an article. While the idea of "good lists" has been floated from time to time, it doesn't have consensus. If you want to go through a review process before coming to WP:FL, I would recommend peer review. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I would opine that this is most definitely a list. If you want it to qualify for GA/FA it would need to be completely restructured so that the body is prose, rather than the current list format, and I believe it looks better in the current format. Lists still have well developed lead sections (check out the ones currently at FLC), but the body is made up mostly of lists. This article certainly qualifies as a list under those criteria, and I would suggest that this be withdrawn from GAN and submitted at either MILHIST's A-class (which takes both articles and lists) or FLC. Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, are all award articles considered lists? I've worked on Chopard Diamond award, but if it were brought to FLC it would most likely fail for being too short. Could this possibly be taken to GAN or is it considered a list? Pyrrhus16 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not all award articles are lists, as some award articles do not contain lists of winners (see Commissioner's Trophy (MLB) for a prime example). However, your concern about length is warranted. I would consider checking with WP:MUSIC to see if you might get a couple reviewers to check that particular list against the A-class criteria instead per the assessment guidelines and then come to FL when it has more winners. Alternatively, lists with less than ten items are considered more readily if they have more information than simply "year won, artist's name, and nationality". If you wrote some about each artist and their successes in the table, there might be more to consider. As is, this list might fail 3b as a content fork of World Music Awards; it is presented by them and that article's not too long to include this information. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks (sorry)

I've removed this from an FLC (it was my comment, Struway has seen it, and it was not relevant to the article). I've refactored slightly so that it stands alone:

I recently tried to get a clarification on what criterion 5a meant, to be effectively told that it is deliberately ambigious and open to interpretation. As a result of that, and having previously been told that a lot of discussion had gone into it, I trawled the archives here and here, to try to make sense of it. It's clear that there was never consensus to strengthen the redlink criterion. The original one was removed without consensus. This was correctly pointed out, but rather than being restored, it was strengthened without consensus. There was never consensus for "minimal proportion", and it should go back to what it used to be, which was that a "large majority of links should be blue". I'd possibly do it myself, were it not for my conflict of interest.

For those who question the difference, few could dispute that ~70-80% is a "large majority", but "minimal proportion" can mean anything from 50.1% of bluelinks right up to about 95%, depending on which side of the fence you sit on. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• My criteria has always been if it's somewhat reasonable someone might get an article made about them (and, if it would have to be disambig'd, it's clear how that would occur) then redlink the sucker. See my newest creation, List of Kansas City Royals first-round draft picks. Left a couple high schools (which are always getting stubby articles) and recent prospects who may soon satisfy WP:ATHLETE redlinked, but many of the old guys who never made the majors unlinked (since as 30+ year old minor leaguers they'll likely never go pro). Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lists with Forks

A few months ago I submitted List of Medal of Honor recipients for FLC and it was not promoted largely due to the number of forks and an ongoing debate about the use of them on featured lists. I was wondering if it is acceptable to submit this list at this time or if I need to wait until I get all the other attached lists to FLC status first. My opinion is that the list could/should be able to stand on its own bu tI was hoping for clarification. --Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's all right as is. List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame was promoted and the sub-list for Players is still unfeatured. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What you call forks are usually called spin-offs by the community. The existence or non-existence of spin-offs has no effect on a list's eligibility for featured status. Relevant is only what is written in the featured list criteria. On the other hand, a list (or any article) should not be a fork. Goodraise 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Need wider community input on a 3b issue regarding a few sports lists

Recently, an editor raised an issue at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches/archive1 that the list violated criterion 3b because it could be reasonably included as part of the main Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball article. I honestly don't have an opinion either way, but if the FL community ends up deciding that these lists are content forks and inappropriate, then we might have a big problem, as several of these lists have already been promoted. We need more opinions on this issue, because it affects several lists currently at FLC and even some lists that have been promoted recently. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. There are already dozens of lists that would violate GoodRaise's overly strict interpretation of 3b, or more specifically, the last part of 3b. In the end, its a subjective criterion and should be treated as such. Ultimately, its the directors who have final say on whether the article violates 3b. I would encourage GoodRaise to provide a more thorough review of the list since this particular list is on that fine line that could go either way.—NMajdan•talk 14:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand the argument but I think in this case I agree with Nmajdan that it is an overly strict interpretation. Using the same logic the Medal of Honor lists of recipients could be included in the main article, but there is enough data for each to stand no their own merits just as this article does. If there was limited info on the subject though I would agree that it should be incorporated. --Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kumioko. Imagine the mess that article would be in if we added the list of managers, list of coaches, and draft picks into it along with all the relevant information in those lists. You wouldn't even be able to recognize what the main article is about. If the main article (the one on the team) was of FA status, it would contain the more general and important details about each area, and not all the specifics. It would focus mainly on the team itself, instead of making it a collection of lists by overly focusing on other components that can be dealt with in separate articles. So why should we do that for a less developed article? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, and I think I made this point in the original discussion referring to the Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball article specifically. The violation of the latter component of 3b is more a consequence of the lack of development on the main article. As Chamal notes, if the article was FA quality and had more prose, things like these tables would have to be spun off into their own articles.—NMajdan•talk 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus here seems to be that I had not considered the future of the main article. The opposite is the case. That "if the article was FA quality and had more prose, things like these tables would have to be spun off into their own articles" is exactly what I am in doubt over. (To convince me otherwise, more is necessary than expressions of wishful thinking like the ones above.)
In response to Kimioko: Your comment (especially your comparison with the Medal of Honor lists) suggests to me that you in fact do not understand my argument. List of Medal of Honor recipients comes at a solid 63,127 bytes with numerous spin-offs of its own. List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F alone measures 167,649 bytes. List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches on the other hand is little (if anything) more than a tiny table. Goodraise 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What about the NFL Coaches FLs? Should those too be incorporated into the main article? Some of them are similar in size to the Texas Tech list. NThomas (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me see... The first list in alphabetical order would be List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches, which is a spin-off from Atlanta Falcons. Judging only from the current state of the two articles, I'd say so, yes. Goodraise 16:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches should be merged with the main article because the main article can actually be expanded and should have more prose. When dealing with 3b, we should judge not only from the main article's current state, but also its potential to be expanded.—Chris!_c/t 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just took the time to go over our featured articles on sport teams or clubs. The grand majority of these articles are about association football teams or clubs and provide only coverage of their current coaching staff or less. (See: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21) Merely two featured articles provide deeper coverage. The 2008 promoted Germany women's national football team covers coaches in form of a section with no spin-off. The 2006 promoted Chicago Bears is the only featured article that provides coverage of the team's coaches in the form apparently desired by some editors here. It is also (as far as I could find) the only featured article with a corresponding featured list of coaches. For the sake of the argument, lets assume that Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball and similar articles could be developed to an equal level of quality and size. Even then I'd stick to my current assessment of the situation. Just compare the table in List of Chicago Bears head coaches with the one that is already present in the main article. It is only insignificantly larger. In my opinion, the list could easily be incorporated into the main article without disturbing its balance. In fact, I think the article would benefit from such a merge. Goodraise 00:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"The grand majority of these articles are about association football teams or clubs and provide only coverage of their current coaching staff or less" – I'm afraid I fail to see your point here. The fact that the complete list is not included shows that it is not an essential part of the main article. So how can you suggest that we include that entire list in an article? The Chicago Bears article simply gives a table of coaches. There is nothing about the history etc there that is available in the list article. Germany women's national football team discusses its three coaches in prose followed by a table. Obviously this is not sufficient for a stand-alone list. That section still has some 2200 characters, while the entire article has around 26,000. If the team had ten coaches and we expanded that section following the same manner it is now, we'd end up with some 7400 characters. Clearly we can't put so much emphasis on a sub-component of the main topic, so we'll have to significantly reduce the amount of information we have there. This is where a separate list article would come in handy. Your own examples show that we can't pile up all the information of a stand-alone list into the main article, and what we do include has to be significantly less detailed. The keyword in 3b is "reasonably". Can we include a list in the main article – yes (in the case of very long lists, such as the medal of honor recipients, even this would not be possible). Can we reasonably incorporate all the details in a stand alone list into the main article – no. A section in the main article can never have the quality, comprehensiveness and detail you can get from a featured list. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Goodraise has made a very strong argument. But if Chicago Bears were to go up for Featured Article Review (which is likely based on referencing, deadlinks, alt text, length of time since promotion and the higher general standards nowadays), the halfway house table wouldn't survive. Either the table would be replaced prose, or the proper table would be added, and the list AfD'd. Personally I think it should be covered by prose in a good or featured article, and that it would be unreasonable to include the table and prose. WFCforLife (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Chamal: "I'm afraid I fail to see your point here." – You need not be afraid, as I wasn't trying to make a point just there. "The fact that the complete list is not included shows that it is not an essential part of the main article. So how can you suggest that we include that entire list in an article?" – At best, it shows that reviewers of those articles didn't think of it that way during the articles' FLCs. Remember, consensus can change. "There is nothing about the history etc there that is available in the list article." – True, there's nothing about the history etc available – in that section. What prose makes up the lead of the list is either redundant to the history section of the main article or merely summary of (read: redundant to) the table the list contains. To spell out what that means: If the list was actually merged, the list's lead could be cut in its entirety without Wikipedia losing any information. In the rest of your post, you're making a flawed generalization and elaborate on it. I might agree that in the case of Germany women's national football team creating a spin-off may be appropriate, if the team had had ten coaches. However, List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches covers its items in a very different, less space consuming way. Therein lies the flaw of your reasoning. Replacing the table in the head coaches section of Chicago Bears with the table in List of Chicago Bears head coaches would not slant the article, neither in source code size, nor visually. That such a slant might occur in Germany women's national football team, because of a merge from the hypothetical List of Germany women's national football team head coaches, does not change that. Whether or not a section in the main article can have the quality, comprehensiveness, and detail that is possible in a stand-alone list depends on nothing but the topic and the amount of its coverage in reliable sources. Goodraise 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you weren't making a point; I was getting quite worried :) It looks like my comments weren't clear (sorry about that), so here's what I'm saying again: I'm not saying that no list can be included in an article, but I'm saying that an article shouldn't be a collection of lists. If a separate list can offer nothing to the reader that can be given in the main article, then of course there's no need for it. But if a list can provide a considerable amount of information that cannot be reasonably presented in the main article without deviating from the main topic, then it should be there. In that case, the main article should contain a summarized version of the information, while the separate list can go into more specific details. This is obviously not something that we can impose some strict measurement on; it should be considered on a case by case basis. But my belief is that in general, a complete article about a sports team can't include full lists (which would mean a list for managers, coaches, captains etc). This is the case with List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches and similar lists as well, in my opinion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For me, a key question regarding 3b is whether a merge would be in the best interests of the main article. In this case, I don't believe a merge is in List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches' best interest. There are many ways in which tables can overpower text; there can be too many of them, or they could be too large for a given article. Here, this table combined with the lists already included in the article would border on being too much for a medium-sized article. Chicago Bears is a great indication of how an article can be very list-heavy toward the end, and shouldn't be used as an example in its current state (FAR will be hearing from me later about this one). Also, I see a hole in Goodraise's argument that the situation "depends on nothing but the topic and the amount of its coverage in reliable sources." This is assuming that list length can't be bent, which can most certainly happen. For example, Germany women's national football team's coach list has an achievements column, making the list look much more substantial than it is. If a similar column was added to the Texas Tech list, with tournament appearances, conference tournamant wins, and awards, the list would dwarf its current size, to the point where its 3b status would be clear. However, it wouldn't be the most efficient style for that type of list. Overall, I don't find the argument of Goodraise convincing, and I think this is a valid content split. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you decide to take it to FAR straight away, I've covered most of the problems on the talk page. WFCforLife (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A lighter discussion on animal lists

Hello community! I'm nearing the end of some work I've been doing on the Dickin Medal, a "famous animal list" to beat all other "famous animal lists" (!) Now here's the thing, I have been looking at the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office featured list, and I noted that only a few (the most recent) mousers had an article/link. In the Dickin list, only a few are currently linked. I'm after some opinions (before I nominate it) as to whether I need to link all the animals, some more than currently, or just leave it as it is. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the list as is; not all of these animals are going to be notable enough for their own articles, as some don't even have names! It's really a thrilling read for someone who loves animals and has never heard of such an award, and I look forward to reviewing it at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that some of them should be red linked, Salty & Roselle do pass GNG and I might get around to creating an article for them over the next day or two. I haven't checked on most of the others, but it might be a bit more difficult to find online sources for the earlier ones, although I'd say they pass the animal equivalent of WP:ANYBIO based on the award. —SpacemanSpiff 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my concern. That the conferment of the award instantly makes every animal on the list inherently notable. If so, and if there's a consensus that way, and if the stubs I create don't get summarily deleted, then I'll do the stubs, except for the animals which weren't even named... would that be okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's certainly fair. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps my weekend is no longer my weekend then...! If I don't link to those animals only cited by the primary source (ie the PDSA) and with more than one secondary citation, do we think that's appropriate linking per GNG? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not think these are inherently notable at all. What more information can even be added than what the list has? Other than the animals already with articles, I see nothing elaborating upon the list in the references. Reywas92^Talk 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate that too. I'd also appreciate your opinion on the list at the FLC as well, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor change in FLC instructions

FLC regulars may have already noticed, but TRM and I no longer strictly follow GimmeBot's timing in closing FLC nominations; instead of promoting/archiving only on Tuesday and Saturday evenings, we've been closing nominations when appropriate. Hopefully, this improves the backlog somewhat, as the change in FLCs will become more fluid now (see my change to the FLC instructions). Even if a nomination is closed on a non-botifying day, we will always try to let editors know when a nomination has been closed through the use of the {{FLCClosed}} template. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful, IMHO; I've always wondered why we just waited for the bot. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding spacing of en dashes

There is an RFC at the Manual of Style over whether disjunctive en dashes should be spaced or unspaced (e.g., January 12,2002–2005 vs. January 12 2002 – 2005). Since any change to the MOS would affect many existing featured lists, your comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Disjunctive en dashes should be unspaced would be appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of documentary films

Regarding the above list, should the references have their own column in the tables or is it fine to keep them with-in the Producer/s column.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer a separate column so that it is clear the ref covers the entire thing, or you could even add it after the name – it's your choice. But if you are trying to go for a FLC with this one, please bear in mind that it will be extremely hard to meet criterion 3a. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply I will make a new column for the references, I think it is possible to get this to FL status at some stage but this is a very time consuming operation. One thing that the list really needs is more contributors. There are alot of people that pop in and add a documentary here and there but nobody seems to stay for the fun.--intraining ^{Jack In} 03:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hi folks, I haven't been active around these parts in a while, and it will remain that way until at least May, although I've had some time to work on some new lists. I have two current nominations, and I also have 2010 Winter Olympics medal table which is pretty much ready and List of 2010 Winter Olympics medal winners, which just needs some stats. However, there is some text that I believe is new: "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." So does this mean that I have to wait until my first nomination is finished? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tend to break that rule or at least push the envelope on it (I have 4 FLCs, 1 a re-nom, running right now). I think the general point of that rule is that the directors don't want people throwing up 10 lists at once and trying to run with them. But if you're dealing with reviewers on one list I think it's fine to nominate a new one. It's all about ensuring nominators don't overextend themselves so much that they add to the backlog with nominations they aren't dealing with. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Are the FL directors okay with having that many at once? I've never had more than two cause I didn't want to overburden FLC, but I have at least one, maybe two lists ready to go now but since I already have two FLCs going right now, I haven't nominated them. I've also always waiting 2 weeks in between nominations.—NMajdan•talk 21:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It really depends on the user and the circumstances. My opinion: all users should wait until their first nomination gets a few (flexible, but two or three sounds about right), and then add another. For veteran FL writers, such as Scorpion, when the second gains support as well it is acceptable to add a third nomination; however, given the current FLC climate, I don't think nominators should have four or more running. Users who don't have much experience with FLs or whose nominations need a lot of work shouldn't have one or two FLCs up at a time.` Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• I do apologize about 4 at once, I realize that's too many. That's why I've pulled back, at the request of DaBomb. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa

Once the article is ready, do I need to submit it for a GA or FL? On the GA review the reviewer thought it should be an FL, cause it "is essentially a list". CTJF83 chat 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I think it is an article. It is organized in a list-like form, but the article is all prose, so I lean GAN. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, CTJF83 chat 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on citations

I would appreciate it if some other editors/reviewers took a look at this FLC and commented on the use of citations. One reviewer asked the editor to cite every column header and every note with the same reference, causing it to be used over 50 times. I have stated my case in my review. Another editor also stated they would also like it changed, but the nominator stated they couldn't due to the first reviewer's stance.—NMajdan•talk 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just following up. I'd like to get other opinions on this.—NMajdan•talk 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Airline destinations

After List of Braathens destinations was promoted to FL, I converted Norwegian Air Shuttle destinations to a similar format. It has now been reverted twice (removing all 57 references, a lead section, revering a table and removing begin end dates) to comply with a suggestion at WP:Airlines. The rationale for the revert was: "Revert / I'm not sure what an FL is, but that's immaterial. Refer project guidelines at WP:Airlines". A discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines, where I am being accused of violating a project suggestion to follow a non-referenced, non-table format for destination lists. As this may develop into a major discussion on the Airline Project about list formatting, perhaps that discussion may be of interest for some of the people watchlisting this page. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all of the changes made were improvements, save for the addition of flags (which I just don't like and is personal preference). The repeated reversion of reliable references is really poor form, as it's obvious you were trying to improve the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto (no opinion on flags). I was one of the reviewers for the Braathens list and think that its current state is much preferable to the reverted version of the Norwegian Air Shuttle list. And if Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists really is the project's style guide for lists, then I think they seriously need to think about writing a proper one, and editors reverting to a poorly written and presented list cannot dare to use that style guide as a justification. Bencherlite^Talk 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment on the Aviation project talk page. I'm in agreement with Arsenikk.—NMajdan•talk 19:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth I concur as well. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The reversions I saw were appalling judgement. If the aviation project insist on unformatted, unreferenced lists then they need to be encouraged to rethink their own style guide. Removing so many references is borderline vandalism. I'll do a more thorough look tomorrow but right now we need to get the aviation project's buy-in to "allowing" their destination articles come under FLC criteria where possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines/page_content#Destinations is the style guide for such lists and British Airways destinations the shining example of how to do it. Yeh, right. Bencherlite^Talk 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we known our standards are much higher than that. We need to work with the Aviation project to convince them that they could have so much better. And I mean that, work with them. We need to open discussion with them. Perhaps they are unaware of our quality developments? Whatever, there seems to be a disconnect that needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the BA destinations being the example of what to do, well heck, that's appalling. I know projects have guidelines etc, but surely to make a good article or list, one of the first things is a compliance (or even an attempt to comply) with the WP:MOS. This list has problems with WP:DASH, WP:LEAD, WP:HEAD, reference placement, the opening sentence isn't even grammatically correct, "see x for further information" in the lead (isn't that what a "See also" section is for??) Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

An idea at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines has arisen to use {{ref label||Hub|Hub}} inline, in addition to coloring and a key (in table format), to indicate hubs, bases, seasonal, cargo-only, etc, see Tiger Airways Australia destinations. Would this be compatible with the FL criteria? If an expert could sweep by the project page and make an assurance either way, it would be appreciated. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me but you might ask at WT:ACCESS to ensure that the use of note labels to supplement color is accessible to those who use screen readers. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Alternative text for images#Guideline regarding its status as a guideline and its effectiveness in its current form. Since alt text is required for FLs (and I have been seeing more disagreements over how it should be written), your input would be appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Without spending the next several hours reading through the massive discussion here are my thoughts in general regarding alt text. I believe that it is completely appropriate to require it on an FA or FLC review. I also belivee that policy has not been completely developed in how it should be structured, but, as it stands a poor description is better than none (I know that could be argued though). For the time being I recommend that we continue as we have been and once consensus has been reached (if it gets reached) then we can correct the alt text to conform with policy. As with anything else in WP the criteria and requirements for alt text will continue to evolve and change but that should not stop us from using it at all. --Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the atmosphere at that (and related) discussions has become somewhat sour. I'm in agreement with Kumioko that it ALT text should be required but, right now, those who define what "good" and "bad" ALT text seem to be a little inconsistent, which appears to lead to arguments throughout the whole project. This should be resolved quickly, and while poor descriptions aren't necessarily better than none, I would say that "basic" descriptions are. And we should all be capable of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with so long as it exists it's fine. Granted, personally I think it's entirely useless and shouldn't be a requirement, but I'm in the minority there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn nomination

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head football coaches/archive2 was recently withdrawn by the nominator, who retired. I'd be willing to resolve any comments, so should I just renominate normally, or would it be possible to undo the archival? It already has one support (from Nmajdan), and Giants2008 would probably support after he revisited. Additionally, this is a renomination after the first one was closed for staleness. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and undo the GimmeBot archival. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Free access to research databases

See Wikipedia:Credo accounts but be quick! Bencherlite^Talk 20:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

see here –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Julian. How should we proceed from here? WP:ALT is no longer a guideline, so I'm not sure whether we should be mandating it while it is in flux. Perhaps we should remove this criterion for now until it stabilizes? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe leave it as a requirement as long as it has something in the alt parameter even if "Link"? I'd rather leave it in now as it's easier to modify in the future that put in from scratch as I'm sure it'll be a requirement again if we make it not required now. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we follow the changes to the Featured article criteria, namely drop all reference to alt text for the moment? I don't see why the criteria between FAs and FLs should differ in the meantime. Bencherlite^Talk 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow FAC. It would seem slightly absurd for us not to do so. The recent debate over what does or does not constitute adequate ALT text clearly shows the inclusion of a requirement that demands alt text "per MOS" is all a little bit premature. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented out, for now. Of course, users are still free to add alt text to images, but should be aware that the expectations for alt text are changing frequently these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So alt-text is no longer a requirement?—Chris!_c/t 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Dabomb's change to the criteria, your statement is correct. It may well be transient, and as Dabomb says, there's no reason why you shouldn't add alt text should you feel sufficiently capable of doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for outside comment by non-music editors on source reliability

At recent FLCs, a few editors have been going back on forth on the reliability of a couple sources used in discographies. These long disputes have lengthened FLC pages, which puts off other FLC reviewers. I would appreciate it if editors commented at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift discography/archive1, preferably users who do not usually edit pop-music-related articles to ensure that the consensus is from neutral parties and representative of the whole FL community. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As a sports guy, I have no knowledge of whether Chartstats is reliable. I asked this question at the FLC and will repeat it here so more eyes can see it: What good alternatives are there to Chartstats for the U.K. chart positions? Preferably, there will be something that is avaliable online so editors won't have to cite individual publications. Maybe someone can come up with an answer. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes to FLs

I'm wondering just how much of a change there can be made to an FL before it needs to be reassessed? like a namechange in itself isn't really going to make much of a difference right? or the addition of an info box? How much should it differ? or is it more a matter of the general quality falling, not the list expanding etc.?  MPJ -DK  20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that FLs need to be reassessed only when they are generally below standard in several areas; specific issues (unless major) such as dead links and unformatted references don't need formal reviews. Take a look at the lists at WP:FLS; some lists just need about 15 minutes to an hour of cleanup, while others need wholesale revisions and are ripe candidates for WP:FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

POTUS

Stemming back to this discussion I am hoping to end my absence from FL nominations with a a nomination that matters (Presidents of the United States). I've had a look at the old failed nomination and tried to make it less decorative per WP:COLOUR. I've found slightly dodgy workarounds for the row and colspans which allow sorting by name (a big + IMO). What other information should this list contain. Hopefully FL contributors can recognise the importance of this and collaborate on this project. The revamped table currently sits here (p.s. I realise the term/VP occasionally look strange but I believe it to be the only feasible workaround for sortability - I would love to be proved wrong!). Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

MOS Taskforce begins

Dear friends, a group of dedicated editors has established the Taskforce to work gradually through the whole of the MoS mess, all ?60 pages or so, for as long as it takes. The aim is to rationalise and improve the styleguides, which have never undergone an audit and have grown in an uncoordinated, often illogical and overlapping way.

The participation of interested editors would be most welcome. You may wish to read up on the initial audits here and below this link. The examples of groups are only a start to the program. The Taskforce is reporting to WT:MOS at the moment.

Naturally, the featured list process has a direct stake in improving the quality and structure of the styleguides. In particular, please note the group of list-related pages that are due for audit; there may well be other pages, which we would be glad to hear of.

I have sought the initial advice of Director User:Dabomb87 concerning what role FLC might wish to play in auditing the list-related pages; I am writing to TRM now. We would be pleased to receive advice from interested editors. As yet, no one has got around to volunteering to audit the list-related pages. Tony (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, the relevant list guidelines are Tables, Lists, Embedded list, Pro and con lists, Lists of works, Stand-alone lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take this on. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'mb helping out too. See [1] Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)