![]() | 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. |
Was there a WP running a project or something? The last 6 FLCs are all discogs and are all in pretty rapid succession. Staxringold talk contribs 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have some doubts on the FL process... Specifically: in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners/archive1, a list which I really would like to see featured, a large part of the list (the teams of the winner) is unverifiable. Because this is one of the requirements for all wikipedia content, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I finally opposed, after I couldn't find the sources myself. Other reviewers, who apparently review many more articles, gave comments on the prose, or layout details on the list. But none of them think the list failing WP:VER is a reason to oppose, or at least they either support or show their comments have been resolved. It looks like I am going to be the only one to oppose, and that the list will be promoted. I can live with that. But it gives me doubts on the quality of other featured lists. It feels like most attention in the review is given to the prose that introduces the list, and the list itself is overlooked, which is strange for a featured list. I want to make clear that I am not blaming the nominator for anything, nor the volunteers who did the reviews. I just think that the FLC process should focus more on the lists, because they are (or should be) the core of the article. -- EdgeNavidad ( Talk · Contribs) 04:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I have doubts about User:Matthewedwards opposes. He opposes with the reason that the abbreviations of countries on discographies are false. So why nobody has mentioned it in the previous nominations? Is there any guideline that explicitly say, that this is forbidden? Why he hasn't discussed it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies for example, to reach consensus? Why didn't he use the iso-standard in Tokio Hotel discography, Girls Aloud discography, Sigur Rós discography and Rihanna discography, which he nominated?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Originally I wasn't going to nominate it, but after seeing Appy Awards- is Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story long enough for FL? It's three years, which I felt was too short, but it's also 16 items if you look at it that way as Appy Awards does, which would be enough. -- Pres N 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the status of having FLs on the main page? bamse ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Adam today announced his retirement from the project due to a TFL-unrelated wikipedia issue. Do we have anyone else? Str Pby ( talk) 02:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick question, are we allowed to link countries in a table as at Vuelta FLC, User:Arsenikk is adamant that it is against MOS. However WP:OVERLINK states that 'where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links.' Now it does also state that you should avoid linking countries, but as far as I'm aware it has been common practice to link countries in tables for as long as I can remember, so I'd like to know which is right link or no link? NapHit ( talk) 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah! I think I may have forgotten to add Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performance/archive1 to the FLC page. I was wondering why I was not receiving any responses. Is it possible that this nomination page link could be added to the top of the FLC list? Please let me know how best to proceed (or feel free to correct directly). Sorry for the confusion. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, this is so embarrassing, but I forgot to transclude a nomination page again. Feel free to add a note to the Native American Music Award list. There are several Grammy lists nominated currently, though only one by me and it has received support votes already. Sorry for my forgetfulness! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If another editor recently did a copyedit on a FLC, would they also be allowed to share their opinion of the list afterwards (i.e. to support or oppose it?) Crystal Clear x3 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A centralised RfC on the circumstances under which flags should and shouldn't be used in lists has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in lists. — W F C— 16:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. How much more time do I have (or are willing to give me) for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Benet Academy alumni/archive1? I'm still canvassing for commenters at the moment. Edge3 ( talk) 05:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not a must-read for us "list people", but some might want to know this is going on. Good raise 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made a mess of this nomination because the title has been changed from "South East" to Southeast" and seems to have acquired two archive numbers. Can someone with the necessary skills please help me out? Thanks. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
Db-move}}
will get an admin to do it, and even move the page in one click, instead of the nasty mess of history merging. ironically, that you had two FLC's just appears to be a fluke. I threw Archive2 in the trash.
Courcelles
13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm posting here for informational purposes only; comments on Today's Featured List should be directed to either Talk:Main page or WT:TFL.
For those who might not be aware, Edoktor has finished setting up the infrastructure for Today's Featured List, and has asked for formal approval to activate the code at Talk:Main page. As such, it's not a question of whether we will ever see lists on the main page, but which Monday in June they will start going up. I'd encourage anyone interested in getting involved to check out at WP:TFL and the subpages, and give any thoughts at WT:TFL. Regards, — W F C— 21:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well it freaking well happened. With only two hours to go, we had a list on the mainpage for 22 hours without Wikipedia exploding. Well done team. More to come, let's keep the ball rolling. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to every one of you. Without our superb writers, reviewers, coders, and organizers (and of course my excellent co-directors Giants and TRM), none of this would have been possible. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been drawn towards this Former Featured List. For want of a better expression, it is the daddy of all possible mathematics lists; any conceivable maths list should be either directly or indirectly accessible from it. I've been asked what could possibly be done to it if we were aiming to re-feature it. I believe I know the answer, but I don't want to give it without being reasonably sure.
My understanding is as follows. For a list of lists, WP:V does not actually apply to the individual entries, in the same way that you wouldn't add references to a DAB page. What we do require is a sourced lead that introduces the topic, as with any FL. Additionally, each section should have a well sourced introduction to the general topic, outlining what it is, its significance, and applications where relevant. Provided that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is adhered to, using bits of leads of parent articles ( algebra, calculus, geometry etc) wouldn't be such a bad way to go, as the content we would expect here would be similar to the content that you would expect for the lead of an FA on algebra.
Does that sound more or less right? — W F C— 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Should All-Star Final Vote be split into articles by decade (2002-09, 2010-present)? If so how would renomination go?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I've started an RfC here to measure support for a proposal that blurbs for the three featured-content sections on the main page be posted for community input at least 24 hours ahead of the deadline for cascade-protection. Your input is welcome. Tony (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently, there was a controversial overhaul at {{
1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{
1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{
1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{
2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, and {{
2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners}} on content that was consistent with articlespace content in
2005–
2011 World Series of Poker results, including
2007 World Series of Poker results and
2008 World Series of Poker results. All the people who are involved in the discussion there are poker fans speculating on what might be confusing to general readers. Since the issue is also of concern in article space and it may even be best for the templates to be consistent with article space, we bring the
Template talk:2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners#Should the "total wins" be removed? discussion here for consideration by editors who are not necessarily poker fans. Note in
2007 World Series of Poker results when
Tom Schneider won his first bracelet it says (1/1), which meant first of the year and first of his career. Then when he won his second it says (2/2) for second of the year and second of his career. There is debate whether the second number should reflect career totals at the time or whether those numbers should be updated to reflect career totals as they change. In the 2007 article that would mean that the first instance should be changed to (1/2) when his career totals increased. In the 2008 FL, the first example I notices was
Jeff Lisandro, who won his first that year and has a (1/1) after his name. Now, he has a total of 5. The controversy is that maybe the 2008 reference should be revised to say (1/5). Alternatively, in the template the decision was made to remove the career totals altogether in lieu of constantly revising them. What does FL think about this. Admittedly, the template may scrap the career total altogether just because templates with a lot of cluttering data are frowned upon, but we want to know if general readers are confused on this convention.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
12:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Clear x3 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that I have done my best to make a good article of CCPs releases, so can you assist with its nomination, please? Thank you. Uzerakount ( talk) 13:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Please come by and let us know what you think about WP:TFL. Discussion being held here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to get Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics up to FL quality but I'm running into a writer's block. It's minimal right now and I don't want to nominate it as is and look like a fool. That said I'm not sure what else I could add that is not outlined in either the main article or the other lists. Any suggestions or do you think it's ok to nominate as is? H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the Alternate Film Guide also an RS? Crystal Clear x3 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I just found out that FLC now has a presence on the main page. In the past, I opposed a proposal, but I hope you guys can make this work. It's been a while since I've visited any FLC pages, and I would like to become involved again in the process, I just don't know when. Basically, I just wanted to congratulate Rambling Man, DaBomb and Giants2008 for taking the process and running with it, and I'm happy to see things are going well. -- Scorpion 0422 01:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to turn this into a FL. I know it needs tons of work, but that's okay. I could not find any similar list that is a FL, such as "List of people from (pick a US state)". What FL would be a good one for me to model this on? PumpkinSky talk 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC just launched that proposes to introduce a framework for the proper reviewing of DYKs, given wide concerns about quality and policy compliance; and to provide for the archiving of nominations that don't meet policy and DYK requirements seven days after their first review comment.
But things are moving fast: now there's a new proposal by User:Dr. Blofeld to change the scope of DYKs to high-quality articles, a move that has Jimbo's support. I've suggested that FLs be included, since I believe FLs deserve a bit more main-page recognition, and more importantly, they're a mine of hookable statements (the interesting, the catchy, the punchy, the unusual). Forcing hook statements out of newbie articles has been a major struggle with the current DYK model, in my view.
So you may want to observe these developments. Tony (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello good folks. While we still have WP:TFL intact (and well done once again to all involved in keeping it going), we're now done to just a few lists approved for the main page. If you get a moment, could you have a look at the submissions page where lists should be reviewed against the current criteria and indications of support for main page inclusion should be given. Also, if there's any suggestion to tie a list to a particular date, so much the better. Once enough support is given, the lists will be moved to the prep area where they will await a final once-over from the directors before being queued up.
Any help, as ever, would be gratefully received! The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a hair up my butt. I know this sounds crazy, given the state it's in, but I'm thinking of doing some major work and getting Amanar up to a TFL. Major tasks:
It will definitely not be an easy list. But I would be kind of proud of just doing something tricky.
P.s. And it's not a soccer team or a TV show episode list.
TCO ( reviews needed) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A lively discussion is occurring at DYK talk on the challenges of auditing for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This involves all quality assurance processes at WP. Tony (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This came up on a list I was going to review, the UK Christmas album FLC, and the submitter, User:A Thousand Doors , was told you can only have one FLC at a time. This was certainly news and a shock to me too! I'd think people would want as many FLs as possible and to me this rule seems so self-defeating. Making productive users wait is not the way to go. TRM told him to remove it or he would, I asked a few more questions, and then just a few minutes later TRM deleted the FLC (I can't find my edits to it anymore). I'm like wow! What is the big deal here? I didn't get any answers to my last questions. TRM seemed to think a flood of more noms would come in. I doubt it. If they did, so what? People can't produce them that fast. How long has this rule been in effect? Why can't we get rid of the rule and see what really happens? A few more might come in but I doubt that many; and it may even encourage more FLCs, which I'd think we'd want. My guess is the number of noms would barely change. PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy, I did not delete the FLC, I did say it should be removed and that I would remove it if not. Another director correctly deleted it. We have barely sufficient reviewers for the current set of FLCs, flooding the list with more is not going to help. All I can say to the "shocked" original editor of this thread is to be aware of the clear instructions given at WP:FLC. It's designed to stop people nominating several of the same type of list (to prevent common errors in multiple nominations), it's designed to keep nominators focussed on a single FLC (so we don't have dozens lingering while nominators catch up), it's designed to keep the process as efficient and effective as possible with massively limited resources. It's that simple. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this? bamse ( talk) 08:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Can Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MTV Movie Award for Best Fight/archive1 please be closed, as I am withdrawing the nom? — Andrew s talk 00:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Just reviewing List of accolades received by True Grit (2010 film) one last time and it suddenly struck me how repetitive the words in the infobox are. Let's see:
Not to mention that the article is referred to as "List of accolades...." Now, I'm only picking this specific list because I've just revisited it; however, this is endemic throughout the awards lists, not to mention the fact (in my mind) all such award lists should be {{ dynamic list}}-tagged as who's to say every single award/nomination is listed? Thoughts? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone withdraw my nomination of List of people from Montana (gridiron football)? The main list I've been working on ( List of people from Montana) went over 200K and 290+ refs, so I have split off the whole athlete section to List of people from Montana (athletes) and merged the full football list into it. I left a redirect from the football list to the athletes list. I'll also be splitting off the entertainers section. All around, I think this will be better. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. PumpkinSky talk 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI: I requested a revisit a while back. I am not sure how to address the sorting concern, nor does the reviewer. I am not sure there is a solution, but I just wanted to point one the reason for the delay. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion on whether List of national anthems currently meets FL criteria, and if not, how best to go about ensuring that it does, is being held here. Regards, — WFC— 21:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to make sure, and not to have it fail, what is the status of this FLC? From my side, all comments/questions/suggestions have been answered. Is there anything more I can do about the list, or should I just wait a little more? bamse ( talk) 07:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please spare a moment and review one of the lists sitting at the submissions page. These are current featured lists so it's really a sanity check to see if they still meet the criteria so they can be considered for main page inclusion! We worked so hard to get FLs onto the main page, it would be a shame if we couldn't keep up the effort and get some lists lined up! The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
All good, I'm back home now so I may be able to get some time to do some myself. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I was the main editor of Twenty-five Year Award (Archive Here ) and was very surprised at the suddenness of its closure. I have been checking about every day for now 2 months for more problems to brought up regarding the article which I can address but none never came up. It had one editors support and I had resolved all problems from three other editors. I understand that two of those editors were FLC directors and they try not to support so that they can close nominations, but I just do not see what I could have done differently. The Rules state that "the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating," but since Twenty-Five Year Award was closed due to "Stale nomination" and not because of any issues with the article, how long must I wait to re-nominate? Also, I if do renominate is it likely that the review will go stale again? Was my article just not interesting enough for people to want to review? I am very confused by all of this.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
hello everyone,
I want to re-nominate List of channels on Zattoo, which first nomination failed because of unreliable sources, for example. I subsequently posted a comment here, but the answers weren't really helpful. WP:SPS say that self-published sources, such as blogs, aren't reliable. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", so I think it could pass, as the author is a computer engineer. I am not sure about the other source, so that's the reason I ask for help. Maybe you can help me. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please visit the FLRC talk page to comment on a proposal to limit FLRC nominations to one at a time. Thanks all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've found myself become involved in a debate at Talk:List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Champions and the article's edit summaries over whether a new table without a source should be allowed to remain on the page. Any input from any of the regulars here is welcome, to help reach a consensus on this issue. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 15:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. |
Arbitrary timestamp, partly because I think this discussion is relevant to a lot of large FLs and potential FLCs, partly because I would like to link to this discussion from elsewhere. — WFC— 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all! Just a quick note to thank you all so far for everything you've all done to get us and keep us on the main page once a week. It's been a success, no doubt about that, and I'm hoping we can keep up the good work. To that end we need more nominations and more reviews at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. There are already over 50 lists there but we need some support/suggestions as to how best to load them up into the system so TFL is interesting, varied and not (as some perceive) a "cookie-cutter" route to featured content. Please, if you can, spare five minutes either reviewing a nomination or nominating your own idea. Many thanks, and keep up the great work! The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, did some work on the backlog this morning, we've now got 18 queued waiting for a main page date and 27 submissions. It would be good if we could get some more definitive reviews on those so we can make decisions one way or antoher. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No discussions have been closed (either promoted or archived) for almost a week, and I'm pretty sure some of them can be closed safely at this point. And yes, I'm asking because my one nomination has four supports and no opposes after a month and a half of discussion, but the need for closing discussions probably also applies to other nominations. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. We have a number of discogs up at the moment for review. Recently I tagged the above style guide as "dormant", soon after the dormant template was changed to "failed". So, in short, DISCOGSTYLE is a "failed" proposal. Some editors continue to use it as either an excuse to revert changes or as a reason to object to a candidate list. There has been a minimal level of discussion at the talk page of the proposal, but nothing near approaching a community-wide consensus. Would appreciate some folks who are interested in discogs popping over there to resolve this, or, at least, to encourage others to stop using it because right now there's no consensus to do so. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors that use the #tag:ref method of footnotes will probably have noticed that yesterdays upgrade had a fairly ugly knock-on effect. See Tropical Storm Debra (1978)#Footnotes for an example. The relevant bug report is here. I know that to an extent this is like asking how long a piece of string is, but any idea how long this sort of thing generally takes? I ask here in the hope that I don't need to completely redo my referencing for an upcoming TFL. — WFC— 18:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello folks. I realise that I've taken a mildly autonomous approach to WP:TFL since its introduction, but the good news is that nothing broke and it's settled in quite well I think. However, I'd be certainly interested in a couple of things. One long term, one short term. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This year, the nearest Monday to Christmas is Monday 26th December, i.e. Boxing Day. So, please, suggestions of existing lists, or even better, a drive to get a new (related) list promoted by then, we have about two months, should be more than possible! (I know it's cheesy, but I'm sure we could find a suitable "boxing" list?) The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wondered if people were reasonably happy, mad, delirious, infuriated by the choice of TFLs thus far? In due course I'll be proposing a less director-centric approach, but only if there's a consensus in favour of a slightly more complicated approach which would involve the contributions of more than just the FL directors. Suggestions welcome! The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
From a TFL perspective I would like to get rid of the submissions page, as it undermines the simple and open to all mantra we started out on. But main page FLs need a quality check, and from a more general FL point of view much of the work that should in theory happen at WP:FLS or WP:FLRC goes through TFLS. I'm convinced that a lot of the improvements are happening specifically because of the main page carrot. Bearing this in mind, I ask you to at list think what I am about to say through before rejecting it out of hand.
In my opinion what we need to do is more closely integrate the featured list processes. I think we should convert TFLS into a centralised list review page, from which TFL selection, FLC and FLRC feed. Even the more open-minded regulars will at first glance see this as barking mad, but there is strong logic behind it. Lists promoted at FLC, accepted at TFL, or kept after FLRC should all be held to the same standard. All three of them need a consistent quality of review for the integrity of the FL process, and I think a centralised review page would provide benefits to each individual one:
I can think of other benefits:
So, am I completely bonkers, or does anyone else see value in something like this? — WFC— 08:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Should a key to a table should precede the table, or follow the table. The discussion is here. Thoughts would be appreciated [Please leave them on that page, so as to centralize discussion ... ]. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A director might want to take note of this. Regards, Good raise 01:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been almost exactly two months since K-Ci & JoJo discography was nominated, and almost one month since the last edit on the nom. Five people (including myself) have commented, including four reviews of substance. Everything looks resolved, but the nom has been clogging up the drain (along with Radiohead and Katy Perry discogs) at the bottom of the Older nominations section. So (although I don't want to stir anything up) what's the holdup here? I'm interested in the first place because I spent time reviewing the K-Ci & JoJo discography (and have worked on Katy Perry, heh), but also because I don't completely understand the FLC process. Is there something still missing on this nom? Is it just overlooked? Are you directors just busy? Is there insufficient consensus? What's the bottleneck? — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 04:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
How much support is "substantial" enough to list a second nomination? Albacore ( talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. Just wanted to pop in to say that I'm super-aware that I'm not really fulfilling my role as an FL director too well. A change in my real life circumstances and a focus on WP:TFL has made it difficult for me to spend the time reviewing, promoting and advocating lists. I'm very sorry about that. I've been involved in this since early 2008, and directing (now and again) from mid-2009, but I'm conscious that I'm not pulling my weight right now. I guess the point of this post is to ask if the community would rather see me replaced as a director with a more active editor. Of course, I'll certainly be working hard on lists, reviewing and creating, but I don't want to be a dead weight here. Anyway, would be interested to see what you all think. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
(Cross posted from WT:FL) I'm currently working on improving the list of stations in Slow Train - intending to tabulate it, provide better references, footnotes, etc. As this forms quite a substantial part of the article, would it be considered a list article, and a possible future candidate for FL? (Note that I'm well aware it's nowhere near featured status yet, I just want to know whether it could be considered a list at all). An optimist on the run! 09:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Is MovieCityNews.com ( http://moviecitynews.com) an acceptable source for FLs? Crystal Clear x3 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. If the stats are anything to go by, our Today's Featured List ( List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones) received 14k hits on Boxing Day, compared with 7.6k hits for the featured article that same day. Well done everyone, this is a brilliant result and truly justifies our place, albeit occasional, on the main page!! Happy New Year! The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think a bigger challenge facing us in the new year (I say "us" in the hope that I'll be back properly in the near future) is to get better at anticipating what will be talked about, when. Of the approximately 30 TFLs thus far, only three directly tied into what was being talked about in relatively mainstream media at the time: Doctor Who serials, Gordon Bennett Cup (relatively speaking) and X-mas number ones. All three did very well in terms of hit counts. By comparison and with the benefit of hindsight, I'd describe Watford F.C. seasons, Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame and Grammy Award for Best New Age Album as being great lists which were possibly posted at the wrong time. — WFC— 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your responses. For those of you who think we need more pop culture (and I agree), perhaps you could chime in at the nomination/voting section at WP:TFL if you have particular ideas about what should be scheduled and when. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps the next step on our way to "world domination", or at least or a more democratic selection of today's featured list, I've created User:The Rambling Man/tfl which is a simple timeline of the next year of Mondays. I'd like to encourage you all to contribute to it, to add suggestions of any currently featured lists to the table so we can decide, as a group, which lists best represent our project, and best coincide with the events of the world. Thanks to you all for the last few years of support, discussion and shouting (where applicable!), it's made our project, and Wikipedia as a whole a better place, and pushing our project to the main page is testament to that. Perhaps we can expand in due course, but in the mean time, please review lists at WP:FLC, nominate lists at WP:TFL and, once again, take a look at the sort-of proposed calendar at User:The Rambling Man/tfl to help shape the future of this project. Much love, happy new year. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn ( talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Many nominations at the bottom of FLC currently lack sufficient consensus for us directors to make a decision on whether or not to promote them. If the situation does not change, we'll be forced to either archive a bunch of nominations for lack of consensus or begin promoting lists with lower levels of support than we'd prefer. For those of you who are watching this page, please consider helping out by reviewing one or more lists, preferably those that are struggling to garner attention. As a process, we need as many of you as possible offering input on lists so that they can achieve the highest quality possible. That is, after all. what we are here to do. Giants2008 ( Talk) 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that there was no indication on my watchlist that a nomination had been closed as successful. The archival of the FLC discussion, the tagging of the article with {{ featured list}}, and the updating of {{ ArticleHistory}} on the talk page are all done by a bot and marked as bot edits, which means that they are hidden from watchlists by default. Would it be possible for the bot to mark at least one of those three edits as a non-bot edit, so that nominators watching their nominations would see the promotion directly on their watchlists? I'm aware that this would mean that the edits also show up at recent changes, but that's probably not a serious disadvantage. Successful nominations are relatively rare so it won't result in any excessive spamming of recent changes in any case. Another option would be notifying the nominators by bot on their talk pages, but I'd prefer the watchlist solution because other people interested in the nomination can be watching it as well. Any thoughts? Jafeluv ( talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied from
WT:FL
Is it possible to have one discussion convering a number of featured list candidates in one go? If so, would it matter if there were 84 of them? Would it be better as seven batches of twelve instead? Just putting some feelers out for the future as I'm not ready to nominate yet. The lists are the various lists of shipwrecks linked from {{
WWII shipwrecks}}, but the 1945 list hasn't been split yet.
Mjroots (
talk)
20:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
At MoS talk a user has said a reviewer here is insisting on the use of the template. It's a bad, bad idea. En dashes are either spaced or unspaced, and the template gives a thin space either side. This leads to its use in situations where a space en dash is required – such as here. Tony (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (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. |
Was there a WP running a project or something? The last 6 FLCs are all discogs and are all in pretty rapid succession. Staxringold talk contribs 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have some doubts on the FL process... Specifically: in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners/archive1, a list which I really would like to see featured, a large part of the list (the teams of the winner) is unverifiable. Because this is one of the requirements for all wikipedia content, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I finally opposed, after I couldn't find the sources myself. Other reviewers, who apparently review many more articles, gave comments on the prose, or layout details on the list. But none of them think the list failing WP:VER is a reason to oppose, or at least they either support or show their comments have been resolved. It looks like I am going to be the only one to oppose, and that the list will be promoted. I can live with that. But it gives me doubts on the quality of other featured lists. It feels like most attention in the review is given to the prose that introduces the list, and the list itself is overlooked, which is strange for a featured list. I want to make clear that I am not blaming the nominator for anything, nor the volunteers who did the reviews. I just think that the FLC process should focus more on the lists, because they are (or should be) the core of the article. -- EdgeNavidad ( Talk · Contribs) 04:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I have doubts about User:Matthewedwards opposes. He opposes with the reason that the abbreviations of countries on discographies are false. So why nobody has mentioned it in the previous nominations? Is there any guideline that explicitly say, that this is forbidden? Why he hasn't discussed it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies for example, to reach consensus? Why didn't he use the iso-standard in Tokio Hotel discography, Girls Aloud discography, Sigur Rós discography and Rihanna discography, which he nominated?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Originally I wasn't going to nominate it, but after seeing Appy Awards- is Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story long enough for FL? It's three years, which I felt was too short, but it's also 16 items if you look at it that way as Appy Awards does, which would be enough. -- Pres N 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the status of having FLs on the main page? bamse ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Adam today announced his retirement from the project due to a TFL-unrelated wikipedia issue. Do we have anyone else? Str Pby ( talk) 02:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick question, are we allowed to link countries in a table as at Vuelta FLC, User:Arsenikk is adamant that it is against MOS. However WP:OVERLINK states that 'where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links.' Now it does also state that you should avoid linking countries, but as far as I'm aware it has been common practice to link countries in tables for as long as I can remember, so I'd like to know which is right link or no link? NapHit ( talk) 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah! I think I may have forgotten to add Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performance/archive1 to the FLC page. I was wondering why I was not receiving any responses. Is it possible that this nomination page link could be added to the top of the FLC list? Please let me know how best to proceed (or feel free to correct directly). Sorry for the confusion. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, this is so embarrassing, but I forgot to transclude a nomination page again. Feel free to add a note to the Native American Music Award list. There are several Grammy lists nominated currently, though only one by me and it has received support votes already. Sorry for my forgetfulness! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
If another editor recently did a copyedit on a FLC, would they also be allowed to share their opinion of the list afterwards (i.e. to support or oppose it?) Crystal Clear x3 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A centralised RfC on the circumstances under which flags should and shouldn't be used in lists has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in lists. — W F C— 16:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. How much more time do I have (or are willing to give me) for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Benet Academy alumni/archive1? I'm still canvassing for commenters at the moment. Edge3 ( talk) 05:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not a must-read for us "list people", but some might want to know this is going on. Good raise 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made a mess of this nomination because the title has been changed from "South East" to Southeast" and seems to have acquired two archive numbers. Can someone with the necessary skills please help me out? Thanks. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
Db-move}}
will get an admin to do it, and even move the page in one click, instead of the nasty mess of history merging. ironically, that you had two FLC's just appears to be a fluke. I threw Archive2 in the trash.
Courcelles
13:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm posting here for informational purposes only; comments on Today's Featured List should be directed to either Talk:Main page or WT:TFL.
For those who might not be aware, Edoktor has finished setting up the infrastructure for Today's Featured List, and has asked for formal approval to activate the code at Talk:Main page. As such, it's not a question of whether we will ever see lists on the main page, but which Monday in June they will start going up. I'd encourage anyone interested in getting involved to check out at WP:TFL and the subpages, and give any thoughts at WT:TFL. Regards, — W F C— 21:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well it freaking well happened. With only two hours to go, we had a list on the mainpage for 22 hours without Wikipedia exploding. Well done team. More to come, let's keep the ball rolling. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to every one of you. Without our superb writers, reviewers, coders, and organizers (and of course my excellent co-directors Giants and TRM), none of this would have been possible. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been drawn towards this Former Featured List. For want of a better expression, it is the daddy of all possible mathematics lists; any conceivable maths list should be either directly or indirectly accessible from it. I've been asked what could possibly be done to it if we were aiming to re-feature it. I believe I know the answer, but I don't want to give it without being reasonably sure.
My understanding is as follows. For a list of lists, WP:V does not actually apply to the individual entries, in the same way that you wouldn't add references to a DAB page. What we do require is a sourced lead that introduces the topic, as with any FL. Additionally, each section should have a well sourced introduction to the general topic, outlining what it is, its significance, and applications where relevant. Provided that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is adhered to, using bits of leads of parent articles ( algebra, calculus, geometry etc) wouldn't be such a bad way to go, as the content we would expect here would be similar to the content that you would expect for the lead of an FA on algebra.
Does that sound more or less right? — W F C— 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Should All-Star Final Vote be split into articles by decade (2002-09, 2010-present)? If so how would renomination go?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, I've started an RfC here to measure support for a proposal that blurbs for the three featured-content sections on the main page be posted for community input at least 24 hours ahead of the deadline for cascade-protection. Your input is welcome. Tony (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently, there was a controversial overhaul at {{
1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{
1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{
1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{
2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, and {{
2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners}} on content that was consistent with articlespace content in
2005–
2011 World Series of Poker results, including
2007 World Series of Poker results and
2008 World Series of Poker results. All the people who are involved in the discussion there are poker fans speculating on what might be confusing to general readers. Since the issue is also of concern in article space and it may even be best for the templates to be consistent with article space, we bring the
Template talk:2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners#Should the "total wins" be removed? discussion here for consideration by editors who are not necessarily poker fans. Note in
2007 World Series of Poker results when
Tom Schneider won his first bracelet it says (1/1), which meant first of the year and first of his career. Then when he won his second it says (2/2) for second of the year and second of his career. There is debate whether the second number should reflect career totals at the time or whether those numbers should be updated to reflect career totals as they change. In the 2007 article that would mean that the first instance should be changed to (1/2) when his career totals increased. In the 2008 FL, the first example I notices was
Jeff Lisandro, who won his first that year and has a (1/1) after his name. Now, he has a total of 5. The controversy is that maybe the 2008 reference should be revised to say (1/5). Alternatively, in the template the decision was made to remove the career totals altogether in lieu of constantly revising them. What does FL think about this. Admittedly, the template may scrap the career total altogether just because templates with a lot of cluttering data are frowned upon, but we want to know if general readers are confused on this convention.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR)
12:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Clear x3 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that I have done my best to make a good article of CCPs releases, so can you assist with its nomination, please? Thank you. Uzerakount ( talk) 13:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Please come by and let us know what you think about WP:TFL. Discussion being held here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to get Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics up to FL quality but I'm running into a writer's block. It's minimal right now and I don't want to nominate it as is and look like a fool. That said I'm not sure what else I could add that is not outlined in either the main article or the other lists. Any suggestions or do you think it's ok to nominate as is? H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Is the Alternate Film Guide also an RS? Crystal Clear x3 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I just found out that FLC now has a presence on the main page. In the past, I opposed a proposal, but I hope you guys can make this work. It's been a while since I've visited any FLC pages, and I would like to become involved again in the process, I just don't know when. Basically, I just wanted to congratulate Rambling Man, DaBomb and Giants2008 for taking the process and running with it, and I'm happy to see things are going well. -- Scorpion 0422 01:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to turn this into a FL. I know it needs tons of work, but that's okay. I could not find any similar list that is a FL, such as "List of people from (pick a US state)". What FL would be a good one for me to model this on? PumpkinSky talk 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC just launched that proposes to introduce a framework for the proper reviewing of DYKs, given wide concerns about quality and policy compliance; and to provide for the archiving of nominations that don't meet policy and DYK requirements seven days after their first review comment.
But things are moving fast: now there's a new proposal by User:Dr. Blofeld to change the scope of DYKs to high-quality articles, a move that has Jimbo's support. I've suggested that FLs be included, since I believe FLs deserve a bit more main-page recognition, and more importantly, they're a mine of hookable statements (the interesting, the catchy, the punchy, the unusual). Forcing hook statements out of newbie articles has been a major struggle with the current DYK model, in my view.
So you may want to observe these developments. Tony (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello good folks. While we still have WP:TFL intact (and well done once again to all involved in keeping it going), we're now done to just a few lists approved for the main page. If you get a moment, could you have a look at the submissions page where lists should be reviewed against the current criteria and indications of support for main page inclusion should be given. Also, if there's any suggestion to tie a list to a particular date, so much the better. Once enough support is given, the lists will be moved to the prep area where they will await a final once-over from the directors before being queued up.
Any help, as ever, would be gratefully received! The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a hair up my butt. I know this sounds crazy, given the state it's in, but I'm thinking of doing some major work and getting Amanar up to a TFL. Major tasks:
It will definitely not be an easy list. But I would be kind of proud of just doing something tricky.
P.s. And it's not a soccer team or a TV show episode list.
TCO ( reviews needed) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A lively discussion is occurring at DYK talk on the challenges of auditing for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This involves all quality assurance processes at WP. Tony (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This came up on a list I was going to review, the UK Christmas album FLC, and the submitter, User:A Thousand Doors , was told you can only have one FLC at a time. This was certainly news and a shock to me too! I'd think people would want as many FLs as possible and to me this rule seems so self-defeating. Making productive users wait is not the way to go. TRM told him to remove it or he would, I asked a few more questions, and then just a few minutes later TRM deleted the FLC (I can't find my edits to it anymore). I'm like wow! What is the big deal here? I didn't get any answers to my last questions. TRM seemed to think a flood of more noms would come in. I doubt it. If they did, so what? People can't produce them that fast. How long has this rule been in effect? Why can't we get rid of the rule and see what really happens? A few more might come in but I doubt that many; and it may even encourage more FLCs, which I'd think we'd want. My guess is the number of noms would barely change. PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy, I did not delete the FLC, I did say it should be removed and that I would remove it if not. Another director correctly deleted it. We have barely sufficient reviewers for the current set of FLCs, flooding the list with more is not going to help. All I can say to the "shocked" original editor of this thread is to be aware of the clear instructions given at WP:FLC. It's designed to stop people nominating several of the same type of list (to prevent common errors in multiple nominations), it's designed to keep nominators focussed on a single FLC (so we don't have dozens lingering while nominators catch up), it's designed to keep the process as efficient and effective as possible with massively limited resources. It's that simple. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this? bamse ( talk) 08:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Can Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MTV Movie Award for Best Fight/archive1 please be closed, as I am withdrawing the nom? — Andrew s talk 00:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Just reviewing List of accolades received by True Grit (2010 film) one last time and it suddenly struck me how repetitive the words in the infobox are. Let's see:
Not to mention that the article is referred to as "List of accolades...." Now, I'm only picking this specific list because I've just revisited it; however, this is endemic throughout the awards lists, not to mention the fact (in my mind) all such award lists should be {{ dynamic list}}-tagged as who's to say every single award/nomination is listed? Thoughts? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone withdraw my nomination of List of people from Montana (gridiron football)? The main list I've been working on ( List of people from Montana) went over 200K and 290+ refs, so I have split off the whole athlete section to List of people from Montana (athletes) and merged the full football list into it. I left a redirect from the football list to the athletes list. I'll also be splitting off the entertainers section. All around, I think this will be better. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. PumpkinSky talk 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI: I requested a revisit a while back. I am not sure how to address the sorting concern, nor does the reviewer. I am not sure there is a solution, but I just wanted to point one the reason for the delay. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion on whether List of national anthems currently meets FL criteria, and if not, how best to go about ensuring that it does, is being held here. Regards, — WFC— 21:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to make sure, and not to have it fail, what is the status of this FLC? From my side, all comments/questions/suggestions have been answered. Is there anything more I can do about the list, or should I just wait a little more? bamse ( talk) 07:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please spare a moment and review one of the lists sitting at the submissions page. These are current featured lists so it's really a sanity check to see if they still meet the criteria so they can be considered for main page inclusion! We worked so hard to get FLs onto the main page, it would be a shame if we couldn't keep up the effort and get some lists lined up! The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
All good, I'm back home now so I may be able to get some time to do some myself. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I was the main editor of Twenty-five Year Award (Archive Here ) and was very surprised at the suddenness of its closure. I have been checking about every day for now 2 months for more problems to brought up regarding the article which I can address but none never came up. It had one editors support and I had resolved all problems from three other editors. I understand that two of those editors were FLC directors and they try not to support so that they can close nominations, but I just do not see what I could have done differently. The Rules state that "the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating," but since Twenty-Five Year Award was closed due to "Stale nomination" and not because of any issues with the article, how long must I wait to re-nominate? Also, I if do renominate is it likely that the review will go stale again? Was my article just not interesting enough for people to want to review? I am very confused by all of this.-- Found5dollar ( talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
hello everyone,
I want to re-nominate List of channels on Zattoo, which first nomination failed because of unreliable sources, for example. I subsequently posted a comment here, but the answers weren't really helpful. WP:SPS say that self-published sources, such as blogs, aren't reliable. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", so I think it could pass, as the author is a computer engineer. I am not sure about the other source, so that's the reason I ask for help. Maybe you can help me. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please visit the FLRC talk page to comment on a proposal to limit FLRC nominations to one at a time. Thanks all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I've found myself become involved in a debate at Talk:List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Champions and the article's edit summaries over whether a new table without a source should be allowed to remain on the page. Any input from any of the regulars here is welcome, to help reach a consensus on this issue. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 15:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. |
Arbitrary timestamp, partly because I think this discussion is relevant to a lot of large FLs and potential FLCs, partly because I would like to link to this discussion from elsewhere. — WFC— 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello all! Just a quick note to thank you all so far for everything you've all done to get us and keep us on the main page once a week. It's been a success, no doubt about that, and I'm hoping we can keep up the good work. To that end we need more nominations and more reviews at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. There are already over 50 lists there but we need some support/suggestions as to how best to load them up into the system so TFL is interesting, varied and not (as some perceive) a "cookie-cutter" route to featured content. Please, if you can, spare five minutes either reviewing a nomination or nominating your own idea. Many thanks, and keep up the great work! The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, did some work on the backlog this morning, we've now got 18 queued waiting for a main page date and 27 submissions. It would be good if we could get some more definitive reviews on those so we can make decisions one way or antoher. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
No discussions have been closed (either promoted or archived) for almost a week, and I'm pretty sure some of them can be closed safely at this point. And yes, I'm asking because my one nomination has four supports and no opposes after a month and a half of discussion, but the need for closing discussions probably also applies to other nominations. – Drilnoth ( T/ C) 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. We have a number of discogs up at the moment for review. Recently I tagged the above style guide as "dormant", soon after the dormant template was changed to "failed". So, in short, DISCOGSTYLE is a "failed" proposal. Some editors continue to use it as either an excuse to revert changes or as a reason to object to a candidate list. There has been a minimal level of discussion at the talk page of the proposal, but nothing near approaching a community-wide consensus. Would appreciate some folks who are interested in discogs popping over there to resolve this, or, at least, to encourage others to stop using it because right now there's no consensus to do so. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors that use the #tag:ref method of footnotes will probably have noticed that yesterdays upgrade had a fairly ugly knock-on effect. See Tropical Storm Debra (1978)#Footnotes for an example. The relevant bug report is here. I know that to an extent this is like asking how long a piece of string is, but any idea how long this sort of thing generally takes? I ask here in the hope that I don't need to completely redo my referencing for an upcoming TFL. — WFC— 18:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello folks. I realise that I've taken a mildly autonomous approach to WP:TFL since its introduction, but the good news is that nothing broke and it's settled in quite well I think. However, I'd be certainly interested in a couple of things. One long term, one short term. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
This year, the nearest Monday to Christmas is Monday 26th December, i.e. Boxing Day. So, please, suggestions of existing lists, or even better, a drive to get a new (related) list promoted by then, we have about two months, should be more than possible! (I know it's cheesy, but I'm sure we could find a suitable "boxing" list?) The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Just wondered if people were reasonably happy, mad, delirious, infuriated by the choice of TFLs thus far? In due course I'll be proposing a less director-centric approach, but only if there's a consensus in favour of a slightly more complicated approach which would involve the contributions of more than just the FL directors. Suggestions welcome! The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
From a TFL perspective I would like to get rid of the submissions page, as it undermines the simple and open to all mantra we started out on. But main page FLs need a quality check, and from a more general FL point of view much of the work that should in theory happen at WP:FLS or WP:FLRC goes through TFLS. I'm convinced that a lot of the improvements are happening specifically because of the main page carrot. Bearing this in mind, I ask you to at list think what I am about to say through before rejecting it out of hand.
In my opinion what we need to do is more closely integrate the featured list processes. I think we should convert TFLS into a centralised list review page, from which TFL selection, FLC and FLRC feed. Even the more open-minded regulars will at first glance see this as barking mad, but there is strong logic behind it. Lists promoted at FLC, accepted at TFL, or kept after FLRC should all be held to the same standard. All three of them need a consistent quality of review for the integrity of the FL process, and I think a centralised review page would provide benefits to each individual one:
I can think of other benefits:
So, am I completely bonkers, or does anyone else see value in something like this? — WFC— 08:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Should a key to a table should precede the table, or follow the table. The discussion is here. Thoughts would be appreciated [Please leave them on that page, so as to centralize discussion ... ]. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
A director might want to take note of this. Regards, Good raise 01:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It's been almost exactly two months since K-Ci & JoJo discography was nominated, and almost one month since the last edit on the nom. Five people (including myself) have commented, including four reviews of substance. Everything looks resolved, but the nom has been clogging up the drain (along with Radiohead and Katy Perry discogs) at the bottom of the Older nominations section. So (although I don't want to stir anything up) what's the holdup here? I'm interested in the first place because I spent time reviewing the K-Ci & JoJo discography (and have worked on Katy Perry, heh), but also because I don't completely understand the FLC process. Is there something still missing on this nom? Is it just overlooked? Are you directors just busy? Is there insufficient consensus? What's the bottleneck? — JohnFromPinckney ( talk) 04:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
How much support is "substantial" enough to list a second nomination? Albacore ( talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey all. Just wanted to pop in to say that I'm super-aware that I'm not really fulfilling my role as an FL director too well. A change in my real life circumstances and a focus on WP:TFL has made it difficult for me to spend the time reviewing, promoting and advocating lists. I'm very sorry about that. I've been involved in this since early 2008, and directing (now and again) from mid-2009, but I'm conscious that I'm not pulling my weight right now. I guess the point of this post is to ask if the community would rather see me replaced as a director with a more active editor. Of course, I'll certainly be working hard on lists, reviewing and creating, but I don't want to be a dead weight here. Anyway, would be interested to see what you all think. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
(Cross posted from WT:FL) I'm currently working on improving the list of stations in Slow Train - intending to tabulate it, provide better references, footnotes, etc. As this forms quite a substantial part of the article, would it be considered a list article, and a possible future candidate for FL? (Note that I'm well aware it's nowhere near featured status yet, I just want to know whether it could be considered a list at all). An optimist on the run! 09:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Is MovieCityNews.com ( http://moviecitynews.com) an acceptable source for FLs? Crystal Clear x3 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. If the stats are anything to go by, our Today's Featured List ( List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones) received 14k hits on Boxing Day, compared with 7.6k hits for the featured article that same day. Well done everyone, this is a brilliant result and truly justifies our place, albeit occasional, on the main page!! Happy New Year! The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I think a bigger challenge facing us in the new year (I say "us" in the hope that I'll be back properly in the near future) is to get better at anticipating what will be talked about, when. Of the approximately 30 TFLs thus far, only three directly tied into what was being talked about in relatively mainstream media at the time: Doctor Who serials, Gordon Bennett Cup (relatively speaking) and X-mas number ones. All three did very well in terms of hit counts. By comparison and with the benefit of hindsight, I'd describe Watford F.C. seasons, Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame and Grammy Award for Best New Age Album as being great lists which were possibly posted at the wrong time. — WFC— 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all your responses. For those of you who think we need more pop culture (and I agree), perhaps you could chime in at the nomination/voting section at WP:TFL if you have particular ideas about what should be scheduled and when. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps the next step on our way to "world domination", or at least or a more democratic selection of today's featured list, I've created User:The Rambling Man/tfl which is a simple timeline of the next year of Mondays. I'd like to encourage you all to contribute to it, to add suggestions of any currently featured lists to the table so we can decide, as a group, which lists best represent our project, and best coincide with the events of the world. Thanks to you all for the last few years of support, discussion and shouting (where applicable!), it's made our project, and Wikipedia as a whole a better place, and pushing our project to the main page is testament to that. Perhaps we can expand in due course, but in the mean time, please review lists at WP:FLC, nominate lists at WP:TFL and, once again, take a look at the sort-of proposed calendar at User:The Rambling Man/tfl to help shape the future of this project. Much love, happy new year. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn ( talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Many nominations at the bottom of FLC currently lack sufficient consensus for us directors to make a decision on whether or not to promote them. If the situation does not change, we'll be forced to either archive a bunch of nominations for lack of consensus or begin promoting lists with lower levels of support than we'd prefer. For those of you who are watching this page, please consider helping out by reviewing one or more lists, preferably those that are struggling to garner attention. As a process, we need as many of you as possible offering input on lists so that they can achieve the highest quality possible. That is, after all. what we are here to do. Giants2008 ( Talk) 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that there was no indication on my watchlist that a nomination had been closed as successful. The archival of the FLC discussion, the tagging of the article with {{ featured list}}, and the updating of {{ ArticleHistory}} on the talk page are all done by a bot and marked as bot edits, which means that they are hidden from watchlists by default. Would it be possible for the bot to mark at least one of those three edits as a non-bot edit, so that nominators watching their nominations would see the promotion directly on their watchlists? I'm aware that this would mean that the edits also show up at recent changes, but that's probably not a serious disadvantage. Successful nominations are relatively rare so it won't result in any excessive spamming of recent changes in any case. Another option would be notifying the nominators by bot on their talk pages, but I'd prefer the watchlist solution because other people interested in the nomination can be watching it as well. Any thoughts? Jafeluv ( talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Copied from
WT:FL
Is it possible to have one discussion convering a number of featured list candidates in one go? If so, would it matter if there were 84 of them? Would it be better as seven batches of twelve instead? Just putting some feelers out for the future as I'm not ready to nominate yet. The lists are the various lists of shipwrecks linked from {{
WWII shipwrecks}}, but the 1945 list hasn't been split yet.
Mjroots (
talk)
20:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
At MoS talk a user has said a reviewer here is insisting on the use of the template. It's a bad, bad idea. En dashes are either spaced or unspaced, and the template gives a thin space either side. This leads to its use in situations where a space en dash is required – such as here. Tony (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)