This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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? Res Mar 16:33, 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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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:
This article needs editing to comply with Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. (January 2010) |
Thanks to User:Ohconfucius for arranging this. Tony (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Potential for List of Texas Tech University buildings. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
(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)
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)
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? Pyrrhus 16 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? -- Scorpion 0422 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Credo accounts but be quick! Bencherlite Talk 20:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
see here – Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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? Res Mar 16:33, 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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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:
This article needs editing to comply with Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. (January 2010) |
Thanks to User:Ohconfucius for arranging this. Tony (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Potential for List of Texas Tech University buildings. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
(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)
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)
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? Pyrrhus 16 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? -- Scorpion 0422 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Credo accounts but be quick! Bencherlite Talk 20:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
see here – Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)