![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Standards change, and they have been changing rather quickly as of late - the date autoformatting issue, the bolding and repetition of the name of the article, etc. Would there be any way to submit a featured list for re-evaluation under the newer, stricter rules? Or just to throw it at the wolves and say, "Be as harsh as you can"? This isn't the same as an FLRC, as I don't want it removed; I doubt it would be, I simply want to bring it up to even higher standards than it was promoted under. This is in re List of Governors of Alabama; should I just renom it under FLC, or...? -- Golbez ( talk) 19:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
How come FLC is the only like "good/featured" procedure that does not have more enhanced way of nominating the articles, for example with FAC, you place the FAC template at the top and you click the link to make the FAC (which has a preset template and all you need to do is fill in why you are nominating it). But with FLC, we have to manually create it. Can we add a template page like that?-- S R X 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
See here. I don't like it, but down the road, I'll probably not care. Just the messenger here. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering how Gimmethrow was allowed to promote/not promote lists. I thought only The Rambling Man and Scorpion0422 were allowed to promote/not promote lists. -- K. Annoyomous 24 GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(Reposting this here - thanks Scorpion0422!) In a recent Featured List Candidate on notable graduates of a school, the following issues were raised that might be useful to discuss:
<ref name="NASA">Reference goes here.</ref>
, and then whenever you want to reuse that reference, just type <ref name="NASA" />
.
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email)
16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Skeet Shooter ( talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthew reminded me of this concept on my talk today. I did raise it during the big change-over a few months ago when we appointed directors and rewrote the criteria. But people were unhappy with the idea of adopting the binary structure of FAR/C, where articles are nominated for review (FAR), and the director (Marskell) decides many weeks later whether sufficient progress has been made on improving the article to avoid the next stage, FARC, which is a more intense period of soul-searching, or not, followed often or not by defrocking.
I've read the now-archived section of this page on this matter. I agree that we do need a formal review process to update FLs to modern standards. Whenever I open an FL, I find things I don't like (usually breaches of modern criteria).
If people don't like the binary system, may I ask whether the current instructions and procedure are the best way of encouraging contributors to improve their FL? Is the two-week period appropriate?
"Once a list has been nominated on this page for a minimum of two weeks, it will be removed from the list of featured lists if the consensus is to remove."
That statement leaves little room for Dweller or Matthew to do otherwise. I'd have though extensions in time should be readily given where there's a bona fide reason. Is there some way of upping the ante, so to speak, after the two-week mark? Why not a further two weeks in the hot-box after that? We don't want a flood of removal candidates, but we do need a systematic audit of the 700 or so FLs. Perhaps over a next year, a good proportion might have been scrutinised, some of them in FLR. Tony (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
PS I forgot to add that I'd support the idea of no keep/remove declarations until after that two-week deadline. That would underpin the article-improvement ideal at the start. Tony (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone. While it saddens me, I must announce my imminent departure from the post of FL director. In a couple of months time I will be on an extended wiki-break for up to five months and will not be able dedicate the time and energy required to keep WP:FLC ticking over. I realise that I have only been in the post for a few months and hope that I've contributed positively to it during that time but this break is unavoidable and hence so is my resignation.
I'll continue in the post until a replacement can be found and will continue to review each list up until my break. I'd like to thank the regular reviewers (you know who you are) who I've called on to help with reviews and opinions. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
About two weeks ago, User:The Rambling Man asked me to step over here and start checking sources like I do at FAC. I told him at the time I'd be traveling, but I'm home now, and if the general folks around here would be interested, I could try to fit FLCs into my schedule. Depends on if that'd be welcome or not over here. I've never actually done much with FLs, so I'd be a babe in the woods on the other criteria... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Barring any opposition, I'll probably start checking this weekend. (I have an article up at FAC and class tonight, so it'll be a bit busy until probably Sunday...) I also plan to get back involved with GAN and need to do my PR runs sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ARGH! Where's my "link checker tool" to check for dead links?? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
While brainstorming on a list (namely, separating the winners/nominees from Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor into a list), I was wondering whether this type of sourcing would be suitable. Using this search tool (the website is maintained by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so it's as official as it gets), one can simply select "Actor -- Supporting Role", click "Search", and get a full listing of all the winners and nominees for the Best Supporting Actor award. Is this suitable for a general source? If so, do I simply write in directions for using the source? sephiroth bcr ( converse) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear nominators and reviewers
Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.
[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.
Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to FL Criterion 5 (style guidelines). We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guideline on within-article consistency here, which states that:
In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes (and check that the raw dates that are left use a consistent format". A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. We need to be careful with lists that have the date-sorting templates (dts and dts2), for which we await the tweaking of the script to accommodate. Probably best to hold off on those until done (see section above).
Instructions for installation
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]
Applying the script—it's very simple
Afterwards
Notes
Tony (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had a quick chat with User:Matthewedwards about taking over my role in about three weeks time. Matthew is keen to do this as long as there's a consensus to support him taking the position. I'm not suggesting we go through the whole "election" process, but if people could indicate their support for Matthew below then we'll be able to quickly establish a consensus. Thanks.
Okay, well a quick thank you to everyone for responding quickly. I think we have irrefutable consensus that Matthew will be a more-than suitable replacement for me. There remains the issue of FLRC director, a position which, ideally, would not be held by one of the FL directors. Since we didn't have "an election" or that post, I think it'd be useful to see if there's any interest from anyone in taking over from Matthew in that position? The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to inquire about the minimum number of items a featured list is supposed to contain, as there seems to be pretty much confusion around this issue. Currently, the official featured list criteria do not set specify a minimum number of items (unlike, for instance, the featured topic criteria, which explicitly state that a featured topic should contain at least three different items). However, several featured list candidates have been rejected recently, with the main argument being that they were too short. This was the case with the List of heads of state of Gabon as well as the List of presidents of the Russian Federation. Reviewers stated each time that there was unofficial consensus that an FLC should contain at least 10 items. However, when exactly did that consensus emerge? And if there is consensus indeed, then shouldn't the 10-item minimum be explicitly included in the featured list criteria?
The situation is all the more confusing since some lists with less than 10 items have been recently promoted. For instance, the List of heads of state of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire technically contains only six individuals; however it managed to reach the 10-item minimum by inflating itself and including the same person several times (the slightest title change leads to a person's re-inclusion in the list, even though a simple footnote highlighting the title change would have been enough). Is this acceptable?
Sephiroth BCR told me that the 10-item minimum was a general guideline, but that there were some exceptions to it. If so, then what are these exceptions? For instance, if a country has had only 8 presidents over the course of its history, would this still be insufficient for it to pass an FLC? I really hope we can set things straight once and for all, so that future nominators know what to expect when it comes to the minimum number of items their lists should contain. BomBom ( talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to have a quick look here at CONTEXT. Tony (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
On this FLC, User:Killervogel5 felt disturbed by the fact that I re-nominated a list five hours after the first FLC closed. Since this is the first time I have ever heard about this, I just want to make sure if there are policies about this. If so, then how long do I have to wait before I am allowed to renominate? Thanks.— Chris! c t 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that these are the templates we use to enable click-sorting of data in table columns. Apparently one has been deprecated (the 2?) and the other is preferred. Can people enlighten me?
User:Lightmouse has asked that consensus be gathered here for the building into a script of the automatic removal of one of them (the 2, I guess). Is this acceptable to everyone? I'm very new to this, so don't expect deep insights from me. More info at my talk page. Thanks Tony (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding and recollection of the situation is this: dts previously worked on "DD-MM-YYYY" parameters; dts2 was created as an interim measure on a "YYYY-MM-DD" parameter format and all instances of dts changed to dts2 at that time; and now that dts itself has been modified to be "YYYY-MM-DD", dts2 is now redundant. I presume that all instances of dts2 can now be changed to dts – if I'm right, and Gary King will no doubt tell us, perhaps a bot will be found to do it. Bencherlite Talk 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
dts2|30|1|2008}}
to {{
dts|2008|1|30}}
. It is important to note that the second argument can also be a month name, like January
. Simply treat this as the second argument without worrying if it is a number or a word when using a bot to replace. This should be an easy task for a bot; it just requires some regular expressions to correctly replace the template; like in
Ruby: replace \{{dts2\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\|(.*?)}}
{{dts|$3|$2|$1}}
Thanks for the reply. Supplying the regex is very welcome indeed. I have included it in my script (it is available for anyone to use - just ask). For those of you with the script: if you press the 'part dates' tab, it will convert the 'dts2' format into the 'dts' format. If you press the 'all dates' tab, it will add 'link=off'. Tony, please test this and let me know if it works for you. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you certainly can't apply the "all dates" tab—see the first table here. So maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you need to first apply "part dates" to change "dts2" to the now acceptable "dts". That also removes single-year links. Then which tab to remove the date autoformatting? Tony (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is probably the wrong place to post this, but hopefully someone might see it :-) Earlier today Lightbot was converting various list articles, including the FL List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, from using {{ dts2}} to use {{ dts}}. This had the effect of changing the date format as seen by the reader from the appropriate international day-first format to the (in my view, for a list relating to an English topic) inappropriate US month-first format. AFAIK it's still a part of the WP:DATE#Full date formatting MoS that date style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed (consistency, national ties, retaining existing format). Is there a parameter which can be applied to dts to determine output format? there doesn't seem to be one in the documentation. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And here's me thinking that DTS2 was used to render dates in the international date format, as opposed to DTS which did it in the US format. <shrugs> Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
link=off
is applied, dates are unlinked and so appear in a fixed format; in this case, they are in US format. Personally, I don't mind what format they're in; the important thing is that it's a format that everyone agrees on. I would prefer to change it only after several people have agreed on a specific format; I'd like input specifically from people such as Lightmouse and Tony1, since I haven't been keeping up-to-date on the latest date formatting discussions. I posted to Tony's talk page at
User_talk:Tony1#Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates.23dts_and_dts2:_request_for_consensus explaining the situation.
Gary King (
talk)
17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)I'd have thought that whether the date output by the template is linked or not, the important thing is for it to be in a format appropriate to the topic, as per the current MoS, to benefit the majority of readers who don't have date preference. US dates for US topics, and international-format dates for topics related to countries where that format is preferred. If there is to be only one date-sorting template, then obviously there has to be a default format, but equally obviously, there has to be a choice. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
←Gary, is Struway's suggestion the best way to go? Is it going to be possible? Tony (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
format=dmy
).
Gary King (
talk)
17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)There are two issues here:
Suggested regex as before would be most welcome. Lightmouse ( talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to write code like that. In any case, it is very common to find a single unlinked date amongst many linked dates. However, that is not the issue for me. If you say 'make it so', I can convert all instances of dts2 to dts with format=dmy
using Lightbot when it gets approval (please support my application for approval at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3). Then the dts2 template will be unused and I know what to do from there.
Lightmouse (
talk)
16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nominators are reminded that date autoformatting is now deprecated by MOSNUM, and may be interested to know that the script for its removal has been significantly improved over the past two weeks. It now preserves sortable table columns while delinking the dates within them, which is of particularly importance here. The script should be used only in association with human oversight. The info package on the installation and use of the script is here:
Instructions for installation
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]
Applying the script—it's very simple
Afterwards
Notes
Tony (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The manual says:
It does not seem to me to be quote an MoS word here. The alternate phrase 'should be avoided' would be fine with me. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my second sentence is missing something. It should have said It does not seem to me to be unreasonable to quote an MoS word here. If the wording is not quite right, or if acting on the wording should be constrained, then the MoS can (and should) be changed. Perhaps it is best if we both discuss this in the MoS talk page. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Since both myself and Matthewedwards are occasionally on IRC, I decided to try a FL channel. My hope is that users can use it for reviews, opinions and such. Of course, it could just as easily not work out, but I will try and be on it whenever I'm on IRC. The channel is #wikipedia-en-FL. -- Scorpion 0422 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot. It has touched over 140,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals and has wording that should be easier to understand. The bot approvals group is not necessarily aware of what Lightbot does so I would be grateful if you could add a few words in support at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. I would also be happy to answer any questions here or on my talk page. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 12:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So Matthewedwards is now a director-in-waiting and that could leave a spot open for a new delegate at WP:FLRC. However, we were unsure if Dweller needed a co-delegate there, but with him now being a bureaucrat, a second delegate would be useful there. So, this is the chance for anyone to declare any sort of interest in the position and we'll see where to go from there. Remember, you don't have to be extremely active there, you just need a good knowledge of FL policy (neither Dweller or Matthew were overly active there when they became delegates). -- Scorpion 0422 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The music WikiProject deprecates such "year in blah|year" links, and the film WikiProject appears about to. The problem is that no reader will click on a single year-link, justifiably thinking it will be useless.
A related problem is the blue blizzard of single years that sometimes occurs in a whole table column, each an Easter egg.
The simple remedy is to link the first "year in blah", preferably in the lead, and to reword so that it's explicit, so that readers know what it is and can, of course, access the whole set of such articles through that prominent link. Here's an example in a current FLC:
Wiki before:
Nowiki before:
Wiki after:
Nowiki after:
I suggest that this be made standard practice in all subsequent FLCs. The script that removes date autoformatting can remove hidden links if you hit the right button. This can remove a blizzard of bright blue in an entire table column in just a few seconds. Tony (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have some questions (be nice I'm new here!). What is considered consensus when it comes to promoting to FL status? Is it permissable to pop in a quick note on the talk pages of wikiprojects that are associated with the list that could be featured or would that be considered canvassing!? Thanks for any help. ;) Best, -- Cameron * 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. Just a quick note to say that since Featured topics have now incorporated the concept of Good Topics, I've asked the question as to why we can't have "Good lists" which would cover those grey-area lists like lists with only half-a-dozen items on. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Good lists. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we've gotten a bit lazy with names for lists. Examples from the current crop of FLCs:
Lists used to be, I think, in the format of "List of X of Y". So in this case, it would be "List of seasons of the Nashville Sounds". But even worse is the second. When I see "Bryan Adams awards", I think "awards named after, or awarded by, Bryan Adams", not "Awards received by Bryan Adams". So in this case, this should be "List of awards received by Bryan Adams". But right now, we seem to be trending towards "X's Ys" or "List of X's Ys."
Of course, then we get to another interesting question: We have no articles that begin with "Article about". So could the above be shortened to, "Seasons of the Nashville Sounds"? "Awards received by Bryan Adams"? The first sounds a little awkward but the second seems spot on. So some similar ones in FLC:
Would be...
I see some on FLC now that contradict each other; we presently have both "List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records" and "Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records". I don't know if I've ever seen people bring up this trend in their FLC voting, but I know I'm about to start. I'd like to not be screaming at a brick wall, however; does anyone else see a problem with the naming of lists? I find the first issue here (simplifying from "X of Y" to "X's Ys") far worse than having a "List of" in the title, but perhaps we should start working away from that as well? -- Golbez ( talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Following the discussion above ( Wikipedia_talk:FLC#The_FLRC_delegate_position_-_anyone_interested.3F) I formally propose Gonzo fan as co-director.
If anyone has any serious objections or doubts about whether he'll done a good job, please post here in the next few days, otherwise I'll be happy to welcome him on board. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. Just a quick note to confirm that with immediate effect, I have stepped down from the FL director post to be replaced by a more than adequate replacement in Matthew. I hope I left the FLC process better than I found it and I'm 100% positive that Matthew will do a fantastic job. Cheers all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your hard work, TRM. You've left some big boots to fill. Gonzofan, I'm sure you'll fill mine without any problems. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange process. As I recall, we have *exactly* only one other director of a process on Wiki (at FA) and the directors here were appointed after widely announced polls to assure broad community input. So, now do y'all just pass the title along without broad consensus or discussion outside of FLC? That, along with this recent IRC development, makes me very uncomfortable and lowers the necessary gravitas attached to the delegation. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Where would I request an assessment of a list article I created? It's nowhere near FA or even GA, I just want it assessed at a basic level and to indicate what I need to do to improve it, and I can't seem to find the right place to ask. (for José Mojica Marins filmography). Thanks. Mjpresson ( talk) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the use of such links has grown to be acceptable in the leads of FL nominations. Some WikiProjects (notably music, under discussion in film) are banning them. Why? Because when readers see solitary year links, they are highly unlikely to click on them. There is increasing support for encouraging editors to work the full link into the sentence on the first occurrence (almost always in the lead) of one of the year-in-X items, and thenceforth to use plain years without any link. The rationale, which I find compelling, is that readers are more likely to click on the gateway link towards the top, from which, of course, there's easy access to all sibling year-in-X links. Here are two examples of current nominations where I believe my edits improve the clarity and transparency of the linking. You may wish to compare these in display mode, too, by scrolling down.
Tony (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man left his position only two days ago, and I've just updated the backlog from six entries to twenty! At the moment, List of people with hepatitis C and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R are in desperate need of reviewers. Their FLC pages are Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R. Any feedback people can provide would be welcome, I'm sure. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So there's been some questions on the FLC for NBA All-Rookie Team. I absolutely hate the look of linking every team to the same page all the way down - the table is blue with all the links.
I see there was almost no discussion here and some discussion at OVERLINK about tables. That discussion hinges (to some extent) on the table being *sortable*, which somewhat makes sense, but only somewhat.
Can someone clue me in as to proper protocol? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the titles of lists. Please participate. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists#Lead_section or paragraph is completely contrary to what we require per Criterion 2, which points to WP:LEAD, which directs to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).
Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview says:
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)
In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.
But WP:Lists#Lead section or paragraph says:
Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:
- If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
- If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
- Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.
- Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. " republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. " List of republics").
Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification.
Currently:
Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do.
Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."
Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert#How Schubert's compositions are listed).
Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. " republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. " List of republics").
I did review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria, and it says:
Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources. Non-obvious characteristics of the list, for instance regarding the list structure, should also be explained in the lead section.
When deciding what to include on a list, ask yourself:
- If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
- Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
- Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
Each entry on a list should have its own non- redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert. Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles; instead consider listing them in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject.
If a complete list is feasible in 32K, and could be useful, go for a complete list. Otherwise, you need to make sure section editing is enabled or you may want to build a selected list.
It is useful to start each list with a sentence describing the content and scope of the list. For complete lists:
- This is a complete list of Xs.
For partial/selected lists:
- This is a selected list of Xs. Xs listed here should be (selection criteria).
When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include the "See also" section, that shows related lists and articles, after the introduction and before the list.
So we have two style guidelines telling us to start lists with "This is a list of....", and the other one deferring to them. As well as observing WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, etc, lists have to follow WP:Lists, WP:Stand-alone lists, WP:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). That's a hell of a lot of extra pages that don't align with each other. Is it any wonder why some people "see no discernable improvement in quality [here] over recent months" and that the quality of Featured lists still isn't as high as it should be, when we can't agree with our guidelines on how to even introduce it?
It isn't just the lead sections that are contradicting each other, it seems to be pretty much everything. Wikipedia is constantly changing and we have to ensure that our guidelines change with it, because as we know from the number of reviewers and nominators to FLC, lists are a niche subject and we're not going to find many other people who are as interested as we are. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed that contradiction from the lead section section at Lists when this was raised a while ago by TRM. And guess who's lurking there to revert it (10 days ago)—our old friend of progress, Francis Shonken. I've rewritten it (with a sense of deja vu until I looked at the history): I'll need back-up there, please. Francis Shonken has serious ownership issues with several style and policy pages, and has a long track-record of reverting any change for the better. Tony (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that we need Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists then that guideline seems the appropriate place to discuss the lead section. The discussion in Wikipedia:Lists on lead sections should therefore be removed/moved. I've always felt Wikipedia:Lead section is written for potential GA/FA, not lists (where the opportunity to be a "summary of the article" is not practical). Rather, the "introduction to the topic" is more important. We should avoid having separate guidelines for lists without good reason--I can't see why the rules for linking or citations need be different. Colin° Talk 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I've started a list here where editors can request semi-automatic removal of date autoformatting for an article or set of articles. The removal of DA is required as part of the need to comply with the style guides. Tony (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Following up on some discussion about image usage in List of universities in Ontario, I'd like to get some input about the general idea of including a stack of images along side a table-list and what display-standards we should be expecting. As that page currently exists, my few-years-old screen simply can't display the page well because "images + table" is wider than the window. This is not a problem for text (wraps in the space available), but tables with lots of columns can't narrow to accommodate pictures next to them. Depending on my browser and how it tries to place the images, I see two different layout disasters: Image:Ontario-image-stack.png or Image:Ontario-image-stack2.png. I agree that the images are a nice addition to these articles, but don't like that we're claiming "WP's best" looks pretty bad unless one has a fairly state-of-the-art monitor and us using normal font-sizes. It seems like this is choosing "pretty on standard systems" over "good on wide variety of systems and coding for accessibility", and flies in the face of MOS:IMAGES guidelines (and sublinked pages). Thoughts? DMacks ( talk) 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Standards change, and they have been changing rather quickly as of late - the date autoformatting issue, the bolding and repetition of the name of the article, etc. Would there be any way to submit a featured list for re-evaluation under the newer, stricter rules? Or just to throw it at the wolves and say, "Be as harsh as you can"? This isn't the same as an FLRC, as I don't want it removed; I doubt it would be, I simply want to bring it up to even higher standards than it was promoted under. This is in re List of Governors of Alabama; should I just renom it under FLC, or...? -- Golbez ( talk) 19:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
How come FLC is the only like "good/featured" procedure that does not have more enhanced way of nominating the articles, for example with FAC, you place the FAC template at the top and you click the link to make the FAC (which has a preset template and all you need to do is fill in why you are nominating it). But with FLC, we have to manually create it. Can we add a template page like that?-- S R X 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
See here. I don't like it, but down the road, I'll probably not care. Just the messenger here. sephiroth bcr ( converse) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering how Gimmethrow was allowed to promote/not promote lists. I thought only The Rambling Man and Scorpion0422 were allowed to promote/not promote lists. -- K. Annoyomous 24 GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(Reposting this here - thanks Scorpion0422!) In a recent Featured List Candidate on notable graduates of a school, the following issues were raised that might be useful to discuss:
<ref name="NASA">Reference goes here.</ref>
, and then whenever you want to reuse that reference, just type <ref name="NASA" />
.
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email)
16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Skeet Shooter ( talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Matthew reminded me of this concept on my talk today. I did raise it during the big change-over a few months ago when we appointed directors and rewrote the criteria. But people were unhappy with the idea of adopting the binary structure of FAR/C, where articles are nominated for review (FAR), and the director (Marskell) decides many weeks later whether sufficient progress has been made on improving the article to avoid the next stage, FARC, which is a more intense period of soul-searching, or not, followed often or not by defrocking.
I've read the now-archived section of this page on this matter. I agree that we do need a formal review process to update FLs to modern standards. Whenever I open an FL, I find things I don't like (usually breaches of modern criteria).
If people don't like the binary system, may I ask whether the current instructions and procedure are the best way of encouraging contributors to improve their FL? Is the two-week period appropriate?
"Once a list has been nominated on this page for a minimum of two weeks, it will be removed from the list of featured lists if the consensus is to remove."
That statement leaves little room for Dweller or Matthew to do otherwise. I'd have though extensions in time should be readily given where there's a bona fide reason. Is there some way of upping the ante, so to speak, after the two-week mark? Why not a further two weeks in the hot-box after that? We don't want a flood of removal candidates, but we do need a systematic audit of the 700 or so FLs. Perhaps over a next year, a good proportion might have been scrutinised, some of them in FLR. Tony (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
PS I forgot to add that I'd support the idea of no keep/remove declarations until after that two-week deadline. That would underpin the article-improvement ideal at the start. Tony (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone. While it saddens me, I must announce my imminent departure from the post of FL director. In a couple of months time I will be on an extended wiki-break for up to five months and will not be able dedicate the time and energy required to keep WP:FLC ticking over. I realise that I have only been in the post for a few months and hope that I've contributed positively to it during that time but this break is unavoidable and hence so is my resignation.
I'll continue in the post until a replacement can be found and will continue to review each list up until my break. I'd like to thank the regular reviewers (you know who you are) who I've called on to help with reviews and opinions. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
About two weeks ago, User:The Rambling Man asked me to step over here and start checking sources like I do at FAC. I told him at the time I'd be traveling, but I'm home now, and if the general folks around here would be interested, I could try to fit FLCs into my schedule. Depends on if that'd be welcome or not over here. I've never actually done much with FLs, so I'd be a babe in the woods on the other criteria... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Barring any opposition, I'll probably start checking this weekend. (I have an article up at FAC and class tonight, so it'll be a bit busy until probably Sunday...) I also plan to get back involved with GAN and need to do my PR runs sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ARGH! Where's my "link checker tool" to check for dead links?? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
While brainstorming on a list (namely, separating the winners/nominees from Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor into a list), I was wondering whether this type of sourcing would be suitable. Using this search tool (the website is maintained by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so it's as official as it gets), one can simply select "Actor -- Supporting Role", click "Search", and get a full listing of all the winners and nominees for the Best Supporting Actor award. Is this suitable for a general source? If so, do I simply write in directions for using the source? sephiroth bcr ( converse) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear nominators and reviewers
Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.
[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.
Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to FL Criterion 5 (style guidelines). We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guideline on within-article consistency here, which states that:
In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes (and check that the raw dates that are left use a consistent format". A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. We need to be careful with lists that have the date-sorting templates (dts and dts2), for which we await the tweaking of the script to accommodate. Probably best to hold off on those until done (see section above).
Instructions for installation
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]
Applying the script—it's very simple
Afterwards
Notes
Tony (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had a quick chat with User:Matthewedwards about taking over my role in about three weeks time. Matthew is keen to do this as long as there's a consensus to support him taking the position. I'm not suggesting we go through the whole "election" process, but if people could indicate their support for Matthew below then we'll be able to quickly establish a consensus. Thanks.
Okay, well a quick thank you to everyone for responding quickly. I think we have irrefutable consensus that Matthew will be a more-than suitable replacement for me. There remains the issue of FLRC director, a position which, ideally, would not be held by one of the FL directors. Since we didn't have "an election" or that post, I think it'd be useful to see if there's any interest from anyone in taking over from Matthew in that position? The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to inquire about the minimum number of items a featured list is supposed to contain, as there seems to be pretty much confusion around this issue. Currently, the official featured list criteria do not set specify a minimum number of items (unlike, for instance, the featured topic criteria, which explicitly state that a featured topic should contain at least three different items). However, several featured list candidates have been rejected recently, with the main argument being that they were too short. This was the case with the List of heads of state of Gabon as well as the List of presidents of the Russian Federation. Reviewers stated each time that there was unofficial consensus that an FLC should contain at least 10 items. However, when exactly did that consensus emerge? And if there is consensus indeed, then shouldn't the 10-item minimum be explicitly included in the featured list criteria?
The situation is all the more confusing since some lists with less than 10 items have been recently promoted. For instance, the List of heads of state of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire technically contains only six individuals; however it managed to reach the 10-item minimum by inflating itself and including the same person several times (the slightest title change leads to a person's re-inclusion in the list, even though a simple footnote highlighting the title change would have been enough). Is this acceptable?
Sephiroth BCR told me that the 10-item minimum was a general guideline, but that there were some exceptions to it. If so, then what are these exceptions? For instance, if a country has had only 8 presidents over the course of its history, would this still be insufficient for it to pass an FLC? I really hope we can set things straight once and for all, so that future nominators know what to expect when it comes to the minimum number of items their lists should contain. BomBom ( talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to have a quick look here at CONTEXT. Tony (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
On this FLC, User:Killervogel5 felt disturbed by the fact that I re-nominated a list five hours after the first FLC closed. Since this is the first time I have ever heard about this, I just want to make sure if there are policies about this. If so, then how long do I have to wait before I am allowed to renominate? Thanks.— Chris! c t 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that these are the templates we use to enable click-sorting of data in table columns. Apparently one has been deprecated (the 2?) and the other is preferred. Can people enlighten me?
User:Lightmouse has asked that consensus be gathered here for the building into a script of the automatic removal of one of them (the 2, I guess). Is this acceptable to everyone? I'm very new to this, so don't expect deep insights from me. More info at my talk page. Thanks Tony (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding and recollection of the situation is this: dts previously worked on "DD-MM-YYYY" parameters; dts2 was created as an interim measure on a "YYYY-MM-DD" parameter format and all instances of dts changed to dts2 at that time; and now that dts itself has been modified to be "YYYY-MM-DD", dts2 is now redundant. I presume that all instances of dts2 can now be changed to dts – if I'm right, and Gary King will no doubt tell us, perhaps a bot will be found to do it. Bencherlite Talk 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
dts2|30|1|2008}}
to {{
dts|2008|1|30}}
. It is important to note that the second argument can also be a month name, like January
. Simply treat this as the second argument without worrying if it is a number or a word when using a bot to replace. This should be an easy task for a bot; it just requires some regular expressions to correctly replace the template; like in
Ruby: replace \{{dts2\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\|(.*?)}}
{{dts|$3|$2|$1}}
Thanks for the reply. Supplying the regex is very welcome indeed. I have included it in my script (it is available for anyone to use - just ask). For those of you with the script: if you press the 'part dates' tab, it will convert the 'dts2' format into the 'dts' format. If you press the 'all dates' tab, it will add 'link=off'. Tony, please test this and let me know if it works for you. Lightmouse ( talk) 11:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you certainly can't apply the "all dates" tab—see the first table here. So maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you need to first apply "part dates" to change "dts2" to the now acceptable "dts". That also removes single-year links. Then which tab to remove the date autoformatting? Tony (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This is probably the wrong place to post this, but hopefully someone might see it :-) Earlier today Lightbot was converting various list articles, including the FL List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, from using {{ dts2}} to use {{ dts}}. This had the effect of changing the date format as seen by the reader from the appropriate international day-first format to the (in my view, for a list relating to an English topic) inappropriate US month-first format. AFAIK it's still a part of the WP:DATE#Full date formatting MoS that date style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed (consistency, national ties, retaining existing format). Is there a parameter which can be applied to dts to determine output format? there doesn't seem to be one in the documentation. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
And here's me thinking that DTS2 was used to render dates in the international date format, as opposed to DTS which did it in the US format. <shrugs> Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
link=off
is applied, dates are unlinked and so appear in a fixed format; in this case, they are in US format. Personally, I don't mind what format they're in; the important thing is that it's a format that everyone agrees on. I would prefer to change it only after several people have agreed on a specific format; I'd like input specifically from people such as Lightmouse and Tony1, since I haven't been keeping up-to-date on the latest date formatting discussions. I posted to Tony's talk page at
User_talk:Tony1#Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates.23dts_and_dts2:_request_for_consensus explaining the situation.
Gary King (
talk)
17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)I'd have thought that whether the date output by the template is linked or not, the important thing is for it to be in a format appropriate to the topic, as per the current MoS, to benefit the majority of readers who don't have date preference. US dates for US topics, and international-format dates for topics related to countries where that format is preferred. If there is to be only one date-sorting template, then obviously there has to be a default format, but equally obviously, there has to be a choice. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
←Gary, is Struway's suggestion the best way to go? Is it going to be possible? Tony (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
format=dmy
).
Gary King (
talk)
17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)There are two issues here:
Suggested regex as before would be most welcome. Lightmouse ( talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to write code like that. In any case, it is very common to find a single unlinked date amongst many linked dates. However, that is not the issue for me. If you say 'make it so', I can convert all instances of dts2 to dts with format=dmy
using Lightbot when it gets approval (please support my application for approval at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3). Then the dts2 template will be unused and I know what to do from there.
Lightmouse (
talk)
16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nominators are reminded that date autoformatting is now deprecated by MOSNUM, and may be interested to know that the script for its removal has been significantly improved over the past two weeks. It now preserves sortable table columns while delinking the dates within them, which is of particularly importance here. The script should be used only in association with human oversight. The info package on the installation and use of the script is here:
Instructions for installation
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]
Applying the script—it's very simple
Afterwards
Notes
Tony (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The manual says:
It does not seem to me to be quote an MoS word here. The alternate phrase 'should be avoided' would be fine with me. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my second sentence is missing something. It should have said It does not seem to me to be unreasonable to quote an MoS word here. If the wording is not quite right, or if acting on the wording should be constrained, then the MoS can (and should) be changed. Perhaps it is best if we both discuss this in the MoS talk page. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Since both myself and Matthewedwards are occasionally on IRC, I decided to try a FL channel. My hope is that users can use it for reviews, opinions and such. Of course, it could just as easily not work out, but I will try and be on it whenever I'm on IRC. The channel is #wikipedia-en-FL. -- Scorpion 0422 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot. It has touched over 140,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals and has wording that should be easier to understand. The bot approvals group is not necessarily aware of what Lightbot does so I would be grateful if you could add a few words in support at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. I would also be happy to answer any questions here or on my talk page. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 12:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
So Matthewedwards is now a director-in-waiting and that could leave a spot open for a new delegate at WP:FLRC. However, we were unsure if Dweller needed a co-delegate there, but with him now being a bureaucrat, a second delegate would be useful there. So, this is the chance for anyone to declare any sort of interest in the position and we'll see where to go from there. Remember, you don't have to be extremely active there, you just need a good knowledge of FL policy (neither Dweller or Matthew were overly active there when they became delegates). -- Scorpion 0422 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The music WikiProject deprecates such "year in blah|year" links, and the film WikiProject appears about to. The problem is that no reader will click on a single year-link, justifiably thinking it will be useless.
A related problem is the blue blizzard of single years that sometimes occurs in a whole table column, each an Easter egg.
The simple remedy is to link the first "year in blah", preferably in the lead, and to reword so that it's explicit, so that readers know what it is and can, of course, access the whole set of such articles through that prominent link. Here's an example in a current FLC:
Wiki before:
Nowiki before:
Wiki after:
Nowiki after:
I suggest that this be made standard practice in all subsequent FLCs. The script that removes date autoformatting can remove hidden links if you hit the right button. This can remove a blizzard of bright blue in an entire table column in just a few seconds. Tony (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have some questions (be nice I'm new here!). What is considered consensus when it comes to promoting to FL status? Is it permissable to pop in a quick note on the talk pages of wikiprojects that are associated with the list that could be featured or would that be considered canvassing!? Thanks for any help. ;) Best, -- Cameron * 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. Just a quick note to say that since Featured topics have now incorporated the concept of Good Topics, I've asked the question as to why we can't have "Good lists" which would cover those grey-area lists like lists with only half-a-dozen items on. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Good lists. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we've gotten a bit lazy with names for lists. Examples from the current crop of FLCs:
Lists used to be, I think, in the format of "List of X of Y". So in this case, it would be "List of seasons of the Nashville Sounds". But even worse is the second. When I see "Bryan Adams awards", I think "awards named after, or awarded by, Bryan Adams", not "Awards received by Bryan Adams". So in this case, this should be "List of awards received by Bryan Adams". But right now, we seem to be trending towards "X's Ys" or "List of X's Ys."
Of course, then we get to another interesting question: We have no articles that begin with "Article about". So could the above be shortened to, "Seasons of the Nashville Sounds"? "Awards received by Bryan Adams"? The first sounds a little awkward but the second seems spot on. So some similar ones in FLC:
Would be...
I see some on FLC now that contradict each other; we presently have both "List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records" and "Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records". I don't know if I've ever seen people bring up this trend in their FLC voting, but I know I'm about to start. I'd like to not be screaming at a brick wall, however; does anyone else see a problem with the naming of lists? I find the first issue here (simplifying from "X of Y" to "X's Ys") far worse than having a "List of" in the title, but perhaps we should start working away from that as well? -- Golbez ( talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Following the discussion above ( Wikipedia_talk:FLC#The_FLRC_delegate_position_-_anyone_interested.3F) I formally propose Gonzo fan as co-director.
If anyone has any serious objections or doubts about whether he'll done a good job, please post here in the next few days, otherwise I'll be happy to welcome him on board. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. Just a quick note to confirm that with immediate effect, I have stepped down from the FL director post to be replaced by a more than adequate replacement in Matthew. I hope I left the FLC process better than I found it and I'm 100% positive that Matthew will do a fantastic job. Cheers all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your hard work, TRM. You've left some big boots to fill. Gonzofan, I'm sure you'll fill mine without any problems. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange process. As I recall, we have *exactly* only one other director of a process on Wiki (at FA) and the directors here were appointed after widely announced polls to assure broad community input. So, now do y'all just pass the title along without broad consensus or discussion outside of FLC? That, along with this recent IRC development, makes me very uncomfortable and lowers the necessary gravitas attached to the delegation. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Where would I request an assessment of a list article I created? It's nowhere near FA or even GA, I just want it assessed at a basic level and to indicate what I need to do to improve it, and I can't seem to find the right place to ask. (for José Mojica Marins filmography). Thanks. Mjpresson ( talk) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the use of such links has grown to be acceptable in the leads of FL nominations. Some WikiProjects (notably music, under discussion in film) are banning them. Why? Because when readers see solitary year links, they are highly unlikely to click on them. There is increasing support for encouraging editors to work the full link into the sentence on the first occurrence (almost always in the lead) of one of the year-in-X items, and thenceforth to use plain years without any link. The rationale, which I find compelling, is that readers are more likely to click on the gateway link towards the top, from which, of course, there's easy access to all sibling year-in-X links. Here are two examples of current nominations where I believe my edits improve the clarity and transparency of the linking. You may wish to compare these in display mode, too, by scrolling down.
Tony (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man left his position only two days ago, and I've just updated the backlog from six entries to twenty! At the moment, List of people with hepatitis C and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R are in desperate need of reviewers. Their FLC pages are Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R. Any feedback people can provide would be welcome, I'm sure. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So there's been some questions on the FLC for NBA All-Rookie Team. I absolutely hate the look of linking every team to the same page all the way down - the table is blue with all the links.
I see there was almost no discussion here and some discussion at OVERLINK about tables. That discussion hinges (to some extent) on the table being *sortable*, which somewhat makes sense, but only somewhat.
Can someone clue me in as to proper protocol? -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the titles of lists. Please participate. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists#Lead_section or paragraph is completely contrary to what we require per Criterion 2, which points to WP:LEAD, which directs to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).
Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview says:
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)
In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.
But WP:Lists#Lead section or paragraph says:
Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:
- If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
- If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
- Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.
- Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. " republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. " List of republics").
Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification.
Currently:
Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do.
Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."
Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert#How Schubert's compositions are listed).
Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. " republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. " List of republics").
I did review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria, and it says:
Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources. Non-obvious characteristics of the list, for instance regarding the list structure, should also be explained in the lead section.
When deciding what to include on a list, ask yourself:
- If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
- Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
- Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
Each entry on a list should have its own non- redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert. Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles; instead consider listing them in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject.
If a complete list is feasible in 32K, and could be useful, go for a complete list. Otherwise, you need to make sure section editing is enabled or you may want to build a selected list.
It is useful to start each list with a sentence describing the content and scope of the list. For complete lists:
- This is a complete list of Xs.
For partial/selected lists:
- This is a selected list of Xs. Xs listed here should be (selection criteria).
When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include the "See also" section, that shows related lists and articles, after the introduction and before the list.
So we have two style guidelines telling us to start lists with "This is a list of....", and the other one deferring to them. As well as observing WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, etc, lists have to follow WP:Lists, WP:Stand-alone lists, WP:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). That's a hell of a lot of extra pages that don't align with each other. Is it any wonder why some people "see no discernable improvement in quality [here] over recent months" and that the quality of Featured lists still isn't as high as it should be, when we can't agree with our guidelines on how to even introduce it?
It isn't just the lead sections that are contradicting each other, it seems to be pretty much everything. Wikipedia is constantly changing and we have to ensure that our guidelines change with it, because as we know from the number of reviewers and nominators to FLC, lists are a niche subject and we're not going to find many other people who are as interested as we are. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed that contradiction from the lead section section at Lists when this was raised a while ago by TRM. And guess who's lurking there to revert it (10 days ago)—our old friend of progress, Francis Shonken. I've rewritten it (with a sense of deja vu until I looked at the history): I'll need back-up there, please. Francis Shonken has serious ownership issues with several style and policy pages, and has a long track-record of reverting any change for the better. Tony (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that we need Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists then that guideline seems the appropriate place to discuss the lead section. The discussion in Wikipedia:Lists on lead sections should therefore be removed/moved. I've always felt Wikipedia:Lead section is written for potential GA/FA, not lists (where the opportunity to be a "summary of the article" is not practical). Rather, the "introduction to the topic" is more important. We should avoid having separate guidelines for lists without good reason--I can't see why the rules for linking or citations need be different. Colin° Talk 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I've started a list here where editors can request semi-automatic removal of date autoformatting for an article or set of articles. The removal of DA is required as part of the need to comply with the style guides. Tony (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Following up on some discussion about image usage in List of universities in Ontario, I'd like to get some input about the general idea of including a stack of images along side a table-list and what display-standards we should be expecting. As that page currently exists, my few-years-old screen simply can't display the page well because "images + table" is wider than the window. This is not a problem for text (wraps in the space available), but tables with lots of columns can't narrow to accommodate pictures next to them. Depending on my browser and how it tries to place the images, I see two different layout disasters: Image:Ontario-image-stack.png or Image:Ontario-image-stack2.png. I agree that the images are a nice addition to these articles, but don't like that we're claiming "WP's best" looks pretty bad unless one has a fairly state-of-the-art monitor and us using normal font-sizes. It seems like this is choosing "pretty on standard systems" over "good on wide variety of systems and coding for accessibility", and flies in the face of MOS:IMAGES guidelines (and sublinked pages). Thoughts? DMacks ( talk) 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)