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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Are people checking references? We don't have a consistent reference checker so it's hard to tell if reviews also take into account the references used in lists. Gary King ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was curious to see what kind of changes have occured in the FL numbers, so I took an old set of data I made on May 11, and took the numbers from November 11 (exactly 6 months later) and compared them in convenient table form. Note that the totals have been adjusted for any major changes in categorization that have occured (such as video games getting their own or the tallest buildings lists switching from engineering to architecture) but it's more than possible that I missed a few small changes. Only one category has shrunk.
Topic | May 11 Total |
May 11 % | Nov. 11 Total |
Nov. 11 % | Change in Total | Change in % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sports and recreation | 223 | 31.85% | 355 | 33.12% | +132 | +1.27% |
Media | 88 | 12.57% | 126 | 11.75% | +38 | -0.82% |
Politics and government | 64 | 9.14% | 66 | 6.16% | +2 | -2.98% |
Geography and places | 62 | 8.86% | 63 | 5.88% | +1 | -2.98% |
Music | 61 | 8.71% | 166 | 15.49% | +105 | +6.78% |
Biology and medicine | 32 | 4.57% | 34 | 3.17% | +2 | -1.40% |
Geology, Geophysics and meteorology | 26 | 3.71% | 38 | 3.54% | +12 | -0.17% |
Art, architecture and archaeology | 24 | 3.43% | 39 | 3.64% | +15 | +0.21% |
Culture and society | 16 | 2.29% | 19 | 1.77% | +3 | -0.52% |
Education | 16 | 2.29% | 32 | 2.99% | +16 | +0.70% |
Military and military history | 8 | 1.14% | 11 | 1.03% | +3 | -0.11% |
Literature and theatre | 15 | 2.14% | 16 | 1.49% | +1 | -0.65% |
Awards, decorations and vexillology | 10 | 1.43% | 22 | 2.05% | +12 | +0.62% |
Video gaming | 8 | 1.14% | 17 | 1.59% | +9 | +0.45% |
Law | 8 | 1.14% | 8 | 0.75% | 0 | -0.39% |
Religion, mysticism and mythology | 7 | 1.00 % | 7 | 0.65% | 0 | -0.35% |
Business, economics and finance | 6 | 0.86% | 16 | 1.49% | +10 | +0.63% |
Transport | 5 | 0.71% | 12 | 1.12% | +7 | +0.41% |
Chemistry and minerology | 4 | 0.57% | 3 | 0.28% | -1 | -0.29% |
Physics and astronomy | 9 | 1.29% | 10 | 0.93% | +1 | -0.36% |
Computing | 2 | 0.29% | 2 | 0.19% | 0 | -0.10% |
Mathematics | 2 | 0.29% | 2 | 0.19% | 0 | -0.10% |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 2 | 0.29% | 3 | 0.28% | +1 | -0.01% |
Food and drink | 1 | 0.14% | 1 | 0.09% | 0 | -0.05% |
Engineering and techonology | 1 | 0.14% | 1 | 0.09% | 0 | -0.05% |
History | 1 | 0.14% | 1 | 0.09% | 0 | -0.05% |
Language and linguistics | 0 | 0% | 1 | 0.09% | +1 | +0.09% |
Philosophy and psychology | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
Total | 700 | - | 1072 | - | +372 |
Enjoy. -- Scorpion 0422 — Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 4 December 2008
Does anyone think that List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches can be a FL? It has 9 items, just less than the 10 items requirement. But I think it is an excellent list. Any thoughts.— Chris! c t 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion0422 and Matthewedwards isn't editing right now, and some of the FLC nominations should be archived! What should we do now?! --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c] 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just developed BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award, which has 10 items. I realise that this meets the unwritten minimum, but I thought I'd enquire if anybody would still consider this list to be too short? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
And I thought the theatrics of something like this (and all previous nominations) would never be a problem here. See the above FLC for rampant incivility from members of the NHRP WikiProject, who apparently believe that their standards are perfect. It's ironic they're doing this considering that the nominator is doing an admirable job in fixing up the article. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, which I submitted at FLC for the second time, was not promoted and had its nomination closed by Matthewedwards three days ago. No reason was given for this closing, but I assume the FL director in question considered that consensus had not been reached. The list received support from one user ( Dabomb87), whose comments were all promptly addressed. An independent user ( Cannibaloki) confirmed the trustworthiness of the sources used. Finally, David Fuchs did an extensive image review. His remarks were all taken into account, with only images confirmed to be in the public domain in the US being kept in the article.
Some users might consider this not enough for the list in question to be promoted to FL status. This may be true. However, what strikes me is that other lists with exactly similar FLC pages were recently promoted. For instance, the FLC page of the List of premiers of New Brunswick or the FLC page of the List of premiers of Manitoba were both identical to the FLC page of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list. Each time, only one user (Dabomb87) made comments; his remarks were taken into account in all three cases, which led him to support all three lists. In all three cases, an independent user confirmed the accuracy of the sources used, and an extensive image review was conducted by an experienced reviewer such as Awadewit or David Fuchs. The list of premiers of Manitoba and that of the premiers of New Brunswick did not have anything more than the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list (no additional support votes, no additional comments), yet they were both promoted by Scorpion0422 while the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list was not.
There is no rational way of explaining this bizarre situation. Only two elements might justify the outcome differences:
I am raising this issue not out of personal bitterness, but for the sake of the credibility of the FL process itself. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people telling me that my work is not up to Wikipedia's standards; I wouldn't even be hurt if someone told me that my work was plain crap. However, what bothers me a lot is to find out that, under exactly similar circumstances, FLCs submitted by other users are promoted while mine is not. Until recently, the FL rules defined "consensus" using an objective and quantifiable criterion: consensus was deemed to have been reached as long as there was a minimum of four support votes. However, the recent changes in the FL rules have made the definition of consensus the sole prerogative of the FL directors. Although I am by no means questioning the legitimacy nor the experience of either Scorpion0422 or Mathewedwards (both have been elected by the community, and have contributed to several FLs), I think it is somewhat problematic that the FL directors be allowed to determine what constitutes consensus in such a purely subjective manner and without providing any kind of explanation in their edit summaries as to why they are promoting/not promoting a particular list. Could someone please explain to me why, in the case of the premiers lists, support by a single user and a successful image review were deemed sufficiently "consensual" for the two lists to be promoted, while in the case of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list, support by the same user and a similarly successful image review were not?
Sorry for making this long. Regards. BomBom ( talk) 00:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the two premier lists, I felt that they were both at a level comparable to the previous premier FLs. There was only one support, but in both cases I left them open longer than needed to be in hopes of getting more comments, but none were coming. After looking through them, I saw no reason why the should have failed, so I promoted them. I don't know why Matthew archived your list, so I'm not going to speak for him.
I don't really like your allegations of favourtism. Just because several of his FLs have been promoted with minimal support, it doesn't mean that we are being biased towards him. Now, if you could get some proof (like if most of his FLCs were being promoted with majority opposition) then that would be another thing, but your logic seems to be based largely on "mine failed, but this guys lists were promoted! It must be because of bias!" -- Scorpion 0422 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr rant. Submit the list again. Trying to make this a huge issue out of nothing isn't constructive or helpful. There is no favoritism, there is no grand conspiracy, the process is not broken. If you want more commentary, ask the relevant WikiProject. We give our directors latitude to make their decisions because of their knowledge of what constitutes consensus and FL-quality on a case-to-case basis. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(←)Bear with me here, my response may jump around a little bit :/ ...
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty/archive2 had one Support and two other people commented on sourcing and images. The image concerns were responded to, but it was the nominator who capped the image review. While David Fuchs did reply to the nominator's response, he did not actually say that his concerns were met. Only one person commented and was satisfied with the actual list and prose. When I looked at the list and its FLC when I closed, I happened to notice that it failed part of WP:FOOT, in that the alphabetical footnotes do not appear in alphabetical order. I would say it's not enough by itself but it showed that if that had been missed, there could well be other things that were missed too (no fault on those who did comment -- we're only human and can't be expected to find everything). I felt that after over two weeks the nomination was not likely to get any new comments, and that there was a chance that it did need further reviewing, and that I could not determine community consensus either way. Those three reasons are why I didn't promote the list at this time.
WRT to the Premier lists and why they were promoted with very similar reviews, I think that Dabomb87 pretty much hit the nail on the head. The nominator of those lists, Gary King, is an editor very experienced with both FLC and FAC. He is extremely familiar with the requirements and expectations of a page before nominating it, and so they require less feedback because they are usually close to already meeting the FLC criteria. Each subsequent premier list he works on can also take advantage of the comments at the FLCs of the earlier ones, and since they have all been nominated and passed recently it can be assumed that the community agrees that the content, style, etc of the pages meet the criteria without it having to be stated at each FLC. On the other hand, there are only three monarch-y lists at WP:FL - List of French monarchs, List of Portuguese monarchs, and List of Sultans of Zanzibar. The first two were promoted in 2006 but have both gone through WP:FLRC and the Sultan list was promoted on July 1, 2008. We don't get many other monarch-y FLCs, and so there isn't a "pre-exisiting consensus" to look at.
I would ask everyone here to remember that there is no deadline. Just because a list didn't become featured today, doesn't mean it can never become featured. I don't like to "restart" nominations but I have occasionally done it, usually when it is close to the bottom of the list and has recieved only comments from just one person that isn't a Support or Oppose. Archiving isn't supposed to say "you failed" to the nominator, just that the nomination failed to be promoted.
Also, I am aware there is a shortage of reviewers at FLC and FAC. The Rambling Man used to review each nomination until he went on a world tour. I also reviewed every nomination until about 3 months ago, when horrible real life issues meant that Wikipedia was one of my lowest priorities. All I can suggest is that nominators ask reviewers to take another look at the page and revisit the FLC when their concerns have been addressed, and actually go to people's talk pages and ask them to review (not support or oppose) their lists and give feedback at FLCs. It would also be nice that if people who submitted lists did some reviewing. At time of writing, there are 29 FLCs from 27 different people (including co-noms). Of those 27, 18 have not taken the time to comment at other FLCs. If your nomination still doesn't get the attention you were hoping, don't take offense when I don't promoted it. I am only interested in WP:FL containing the very best lists that we have to offer, and not -- to put it bluntly -- babying people's egos by caring about how many stars they have earned. I do not practice favouritism; I have promoted FLCs submitted by the "regulars", and I have archived FLCs from those same people as well. I pay little attention to who the nominator is and I completely ignore WP:WBFLN.
BomBom, you said this isn't a personal attack, and I don't take it to be. My interest is Wikipedia and I welcome any discussion about FL/FLC and its operation. As you said, a list was originally promoted if it had received four support votes as a minimum for consensus. That rule was abolished because the original nominator counted as one support vote, the nominations were open to vote-stacking and drive-by votes, four was an completely abitary figure, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. I don't mind if people want to discuss bringing that rule back (or discuss keeping it abolished) but I do wonder if we have enough reviewers to get 4 supports.
I hope I answered everything but if not, let me know. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes was archived tonight, but instead of just archiving, for some reason its been completeld deleted?? Is this part of whatever software screw up is happening right now that remove all the JS stuff from the site, including breaking Twinkle and Friendly? Either way, shouldn't it be undeleted? --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It's been that way for two months (since October 25). Something changed in the MediaWiki software, and moves via script stopped leaving a redirect. FAC has a preload for a new page. Among other things, this preload adds a transclusion of Wikipedia:Featured article tools which generates a list of FAC archive links, so a redirect isn't needed for a new nomination. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel Selwood/archive2.) In fact, the redirect was confusing to enough FAC nominators that it required a second edit to replaced it with a starter page. Eventually, FAC will probably have the nomination start at a /archiveN or equivalent page so the moves won't happen at all. But that takes some coordination and time to set up. Gimmetrow 06:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya all, I've seen a bit written about the "minimum 10 entries" rule (see for example three sections or so above). I was wondering how strict this was, as I had an eye to nominating this, but obviously won't if there's no chance of it passing with only 8 entries.
Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This is only from my perspective. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 spell my name backwards on 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The last comment added on FLRC dated back to December 21st. Don't you guys think we need more users to contribute to the process? -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 (spell my name backwards) at 10:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot of users use Mozilla Firefox here on Wikipedia due to some features only available for FF. However, as of late, sortable tables have had a glitch with Firefox, and when I review lists, the sortable tables do not work for me. I'm just letting people know who do not use FF to check the sortability of the tables, as there could always be a coding problem.-- Tr uc o 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does Peer review have to be linked twice?-- Tr uc o 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it'll be a great idea if we do what
WP:FA does, put a star next to the language page link if the article is featured in another language version, on the list left of the page. Thanks in advance if commenting. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 spell my name backwards on 11:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
These are the wikipedias that have a FL process:
-- Scorpion 0422 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to reply or comment on this section? I'm starting to get this up ASAP. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 (spell my name backwards) at 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've recently started to work on a page closely tied to a certain major sporting event that takes place on February 1. If I nominate the page here on the 13th or 14th of this month, it could potentially be promoted or archived a week or so before the game at the earliest. Before I do that, however, I need to know what process the stability criterion plays. Is a list on an upcoming event considered unstable enough to be failed for that reason alone? Nothing that I saw in the talk page archives has anything to do with this. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I withdraw a nom, or is it better to leave it until it is failed? The nom is this and both me and the other editor don't have time the time right now to make the necessary changes. What would you suggest? Chamal talk 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on Controlled substances in Oregon and it's kind of listy (listish?). Would it be appropriate as a featured list candidate? Whether it's comprehensive is debatable. I'm trying to use it as an easy reference overview, without going into the amount of detail at Alcohol in Oregon and other possible articles that could be linked to in it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should just compare
Discography of Final Fantasy III and
Hilary Duff discography. The first one is a good article, while the other one is a featured list. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
review me 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do some featured lists of people have a citation for every person and some don't, even though they have been featured recently (within the last year)? What is the standard here? one with a cite for every person, one without such cites. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There appear to have been two standards on cites for FLs. One standard that each entry must have a cite, the other that the linked article provides the cite. The issues I see with the linked articles providing the cite are:
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Per this conversation, are the only people allowed to nominate FLCs "experienced editors"- i.e. people who already have several FLs? I'm not experienced enough with the FLC process to know. Thanks. jj137 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals about splitting off information from the main article. In this case, the list of finals and finalists has been split off from the main FIFA World Cup article. Some at the current FLC feel that this is a " content fork", and should not be an article. What does anybody else think? My feeling is that dozens of sports head coach, manager and draft pick lists have been promoted at FLC since last June or so. In this way, we have set a precedent. Should we continue to allow such lists, or should we nominate them for deletion? Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll put in my two pence. (Please note I am not commenting on the "List of FIFA World Cup finals", but on forking/splitting in general.) The way I see it, the real problem here is considering when the size of the "list" in a main article is large enough to be spun off into its own list. IMO if the main article retains the list after "splitting" then surely that is a fork (an FL example might be that List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches could very easily be put into Atlanta Falcons#Head coaches). The unwritten 10 item rule already exists and prevents silly small lists and unnecessary splitting to some extent, but we may need to re-iterate to people that meeting this does not automatically justify having its own list. Whether something needs to be added to the criteria, WP:FL? already states "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content" so I don't think it needs its own criteria, but maybe just a case of linking to content policy and guidelines at the top. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A situation at List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) brings up an issue that also arises in other contexts. Featured lists tend to be annotated or contain images and text, like [1], but some readers/editors want a "short list" like [2]. Is there any reasonable way to satisfy both camps? Any precedent? Gimmetrow 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. We'll try this again. This isn't an argument on what a featured list ought to look like. The question is - are there any topics on Wikipedia covered by both annotated lists and short lists? The answer to that is: Yes. Some TV series have annotated lists for each season and a short list for all episodes together. Now, is there any way to generalize that or make that applicable to the Hot 100 case? Gimmetrow 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
USNumber1s}}
. Which type do we link to from there?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 02:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)I found an example in the UK Singles Chart, apparently each year have a page with a summary and the everything like: 1996 in British music, now there is also a page for the List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK), which covers the entire decade but is basically the same information. Frcm1988 ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
..why can't the FLC noms have a pre-load article like it is on FAC, with a nominators stamp, toolbox, and the name of the article already loaded into the article?-- TRU CO 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) We will have to test and see. I think that the ability to cap is important (so much easier and efficient than striking). Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
So whats the followup on this? I generally see the acceptance of the idea to have a pre-load template like at FAC. Can we have a 'discussion here where people can voice their opinions by supporting, opposing, or commenting (not voting). In addition, is there a way to get this on the ads located on the watchlist?-- TRU CO 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would support such a motion if it did not affect reviewers' ability to cap resolved comments. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It seems to work, let's do it! Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay done, implemented. Gary King ( talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
clear}}
to the preload, but reviewers (and nominators) have to know to not delete the substituted clear template.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
← Also, adding {{
clear}} to the preload is not the most elegant solution. Instead of using a div tag, using a table tag will solve the problem. Right now, people are using {{
hidden}} right? Well, I created {{
hidden/FLC}}, so just add /FLC
to the template's name and voila, it won't intersect with the toolbox, but it should still retain the same functionality that {{
hidden}} offers.
Gary King (
talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Team record FLs are inconsistent in their usage of "List of" in the title. One baseball team records page uses it, but another doesn't. The nine FLs on soccer club records also have no uniform standard. Shouldn't these be made consistent, one way or the other? If so, which way is better? Giants2008 ( 17-14) 05:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the primary contributor and creator of List of Australian George Cross recipients, which has been nominated by another editor with out my consent for FLC. I do wish to eventually take the article to FLC, but this is premature as I was still seeking advice on the article and have it up for Milhist ACR. Would it be possible to remove the nomination completely? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that if any project rates a list as an article (start, B, C etc) instead of "List", the the article doesn't inform readers that it is up at FLC, even if other prjects rate it as list. As i think some projects don't use use list class, can this be fixed, so that a FLC is always noted on the page, whether or not all projects call it list class? Yobmod ( talk) 11:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::My setting make it so that pages always tell me "This is a xxx class article". And if they are submitted for FL, it tells me that too. At
Gaylactic spectrum award winners, the talk page has 2 banners - one is rated List and the other B. This caused the page to say "This is a B class article" (which is fine), but also did not display "currently a FLC". (I changed both to list and it worked fine - now changed back so others can see).
I've just noticed the text flows into the toolbox on this FLC. I don't know how to fix this at the moment. Can do it and then I can learn for the future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I fiddled around and managed to fix it by simply adding another blank line [3] Before it wrapped, but I was wondering if this is the standard fix (not just coincedence) and whether an extra line in the toolbox?/preload? template(s) might prevent this from happening in future. I am asking as I am not going to try and fiddle with something I don't know enough about. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let nominators and reviewers know that the temporary injunction by ArbCom against the use of this script applies only to "mass delinking". Nominators and reviewers are welcome to continue its use to satisfy Cr. 5 (compliance with the style guides). Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Has the naming convention for these types of lists changed? User:Otto4711 has renamed dozens of these lists. Gary King ( talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the articles Otto4711 moved was one I created, List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie, and when I initially saw the move I simply shrugged. When I originally created the article, I named it List of David Bowie awards and nominations because I saw that most of these kinds of lists were named that way. When I took it to FLC, however, Gary King moved it to its current name. Again I just shrugged and thought, "whatever it takes to get through FLC" (I've done three now and it still unnerves me). But having read erachima's argument at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris, I have to agree that the List of awards [and nominations] received by Foo format is better. I would think that most people would know who David Bowie is, so there wouldn't be any ambiguity between either format for the title, but I (and probably quite a few others) haven't heard of Ludacris and, if it was List of Ludacris awards and nominations, I could see how someone unfamiliar could wonder if it was the name of the award or the name of nominee/recipient. If consistency is the name of the game, then I would suggest that List of awards [and nominations] received by Foo is less ambiguous and the List of Foo awards [and nominations] should be moved even though there may be a greater number. -- JD554 ( talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You started a discussion on a category talk page that likely not a lot of people have on watch and then claim nobody objects. You should have gone to WP:MUSIC, which is where this discussion belongs. -- Scorpion 0422 19:36, 12 February 2009 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Are people checking references? We don't have a consistent reference checker so it's hard to tell if reviews also take into account the references used in lists. Gary King ( talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was curious to see what kind of changes have occured in the FL numbers, so I took an old set of data I made on May 11, and took the numbers from November 11 (exactly 6 months later) and compared them in convenient table form. Note that the totals have been adjusted for any major changes in categorization that have occured (such as video games getting their own or the tallest buildings lists switching from engineering to architecture) but it's more than possible that I missed a few small changes. Only one category has shrunk.
Topic | May 11 Total |
May 11 % | Nov. 11 Total |
Nov. 11 % | Change in Total | Change in % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sports and recreation | 223 | 31.85% | 355 | 33.12% | +132 | +1.27% |
Media | 88 | 12.57% | 126 | 11.75% | +38 | -0.82% |
Politics and government | 64 | 9.14% | 66 | 6.16% | +2 | -2.98% |
Geography and places | 62 | 8.86% | 63 | 5.88% | +1 | -2.98% |
Music | 61 | 8.71% | 166 | 15.49% | +105 | +6.78% |
Biology and medicine | 32 | 4.57% | 34 | 3.17% | +2 | -1.40% |
Geology, Geophysics and meteorology | 26 | 3.71% | 38 | 3.54% | +12 | -0.17% |
Art, architecture and archaeology | 24 | 3.43% | 39 | 3.64% | +15 | +0.21% |
Culture and society | 16 | 2.29% | 19 | 1.77% | +3 | -0.52% |
Education | 16 | 2.29% | 32 | 2.99% | +16 | +0.70% |
Military and military history | 8 | 1.14% | 11 | 1.03% | +3 | -0.11% |
Literature and theatre | 15 | 2.14% | 16 | 1.49% | +1 | -0.65% |
Awards, decorations and vexillology | 10 | 1.43% | 22 | 2.05% | +12 | +0.62% |
Video gaming | 8 | 1.14% | 17 | 1.59% | +9 | +0.45% |
Law | 8 | 1.14% | 8 | 0.75% | 0 | -0.39% |
Religion, mysticism and mythology | 7 | 1.00 % | 7 | 0.65% | 0 | -0.35% |
Business, economics and finance | 6 | 0.86% | 16 | 1.49% | +10 | +0.63% |
Transport | 5 | 0.71% | 12 | 1.12% | +7 | +0.41% |
Chemistry and minerology | 4 | 0.57% | 3 | 0.28% | -1 | -0.29% |
Physics and astronomy | 9 | 1.29% | 10 | 0.93% | +1 | -0.36% |
Computing | 2 | 0.29% | 2 | 0.19% | 0 | -0.10% |
Mathematics | 2 | 0.29% | 2 | 0.19% | 0 | -0.10% |
Royalty, nobility and heraldry | 2 | 0.29% | 3 | 0.28% | +1 | -0.01% |
Food and drink | 1 | 0.14% | 1 | 0.09% | 0 | -0.05% |
Engineering and techonology | 1 | 0.14% | 1 | 0.09% | 0 | -0.05% |
History | 1 | 0.14% | 1 | 0.09% | 0 | -0.05% |
Language and linguistics | 0 | 0% | 1 | 0.09% | +1 | +0.09% |
Philosophy and psychology | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
Total | 700 | - | 1072 | - | +372 |
Enjoy. -- Scorpion 0422 — Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 4 December 2008
Does anyone think that List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches can be a FL? It has 9 items, just less than the 10 items requirement. But I think it is an excellent list. Any thoughts.— Chris! c t 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion0422 and Matthewedwards isn't editing right now, and some of the FLC nominations should be archived! What should we do now?! --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c] 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just developed BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award, which has 10 items. I realise that this meets the unwritten minimum, but I thought I'd enquire if anybody would still consider this list to be too short? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
And I thought the theatrics of something like this (and all previous nominations) would never be a problem here. See the above FLC for rampant incivility from members of the NHRP WikiProject, who apparently believe that their standards are perfect. It's ironic they're doing this considering that the nominator is doing an admirable job in fixing up the article. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, which I submitted at FLC for the second time, was not promoted and had its nomination closed by Matthewedwards three days ago. No reason was given for this closing, but I assume the FL director in question considered that consensus had not been reached. The list received support from one user ( Dabomb87), whose comments were all promptly addressed. An independent user ( Cannibaloki) confirmed the trustworthiness of the sources used. Finally, David Fuchs did an extensive image review. His remarks were all taken into account, with only images confirmed to be in the public domain in the US being kept in the article.
Some users might consider this not enough for the list in question to be promoted to FL status. This may be true. However, what strikes me is that other lists with exactly similar FLC pages were recently promoted. For instance, the FLC page of the List of premiers of New Brunswick or the FLC page of the List of premiers of Manitoba were both identical to the FLC page of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list. Each time, only one user (Dabomb87) made comments; his remarks were taken into account in all three cases, which led him to support all three lists. In all three cases, an independent user confirmed the accuracy of the sources used, and an extensive image review was conducted by an experienced reviewer such as Awadewit or David Fuchs. The list of premiers of Manitoba and that of the premiers of New Brunswick did not have anything more than the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list (no additional support votes, no additional comments), yet they were both promoted by Scorpion0422 while the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list was not.
There is no rational way of explaining this bizarre situation. Only two elements might justify the outcome differences:
I am raising this issue not out of personal bitterness, but for the sake of the credibility of the FL process itself. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people telling me that my work is not up to Wikipedia's standards; I wouldn't even be hurt if someone told me that my work was plain crap. However, what bothers me a lot is to find out that, under exactly similar circumstances, FLCs submitted by other users are promoted while mine is not. Until recently, the FL rules defined "consensus" using an objective and quantifiable criterion: consensus was deemed to have been reached as long as there was a minimum of four support votes. However, the recent changes in the FL rules have made the definition of consensus the sole prerogative of the FL directors. Although I am by no means questioning the legitimacy nor the experience of either Scorpion0422 or Mathewedwards (both have been elected by the community, and have contributed to several FLs), I think it is somewhat problematic that the FL directors be allowed to determine what constitutes consensus in such a purely subjective manner and without providing any kind of explanation in their edit summaries as to why they are promoting/not promoting a particular list. Could someone please explain to me why, in the case of the premiers lists, support by a single user and a successful image review were deemed sufficiently "consensual" for the two lists to be promoted, while in the case of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list, support by the same user and a similarly successful image review were not?
Sorry for making this long. Regards. BomBom ( talk) 00:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the two premier lists, I felt that they were both at a level comparable to the previous premier FLs. There was only one support, but in both cases I left them open longer than needed to be in hopes of getting more comments, but none were coming. After looking through them, I saw no reason why the should have failed, so I promoted them. I don't know why Matthew archived your list, so I'm not going to speak for him.
I don't really like your allegations of favourtism. Just because several of his FLs have been promoted with minimal support, it doesn't mean that we are being biased towards him. Now, if you could get some proof (like if most of his FLCs were being promoted with majority opposition) then that would be another thing, but your logic seems to be based largely on "mine failed, but this guys lists were promoted! It must be because of bias!" -- Scorpion 0422 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
tl;dr rant. Submit the list again. Trying to make this a huge issue out of nothing isn't constructive or helpful. There is no favoritism, there is no grand conspiracy, the process is not broken. If you want more commentary, ask the relevant WikiProject. We give our directors latitude to make their decisions because of their knowledge of what constitutes consensus and FL-quality on a case-to-case basis. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
(←)Bear with me here, my response may jump around a little bit :/ ...
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty/archive2 had one Support and two other people commented on sourcing and images. The image concerns were responded to, but it was the nominator who capped the image review. While David Fuchs did reply to the nominator's response, he did not actually say that his concerns were met. Only one person commented and was satisfied with the actual list and prose. When I looked at the list and its FLC when I closed, I happened to notice that it failed part of WP:FOOT, in that the alphabetical footnotes do not appear in alphabetical order. I would say it's not enough by itself but it showed that if that had been missed, there could well be other things that were missed too (no fault on those who did comment -- we're only human and can't be expected to find everything). I felt that after over two weeks the nomination was not likely to get any new comments, and that there was a chance that it did need further reviewing, and that I could not determine community consensus either way. Those three reasons are why I didn't promote the list at this time.
WRT to the Premier lists and why they were promoted with very similar reviews, I think that Dabomb87 pretty much hit the nail on the head. The nominator of those lists, Gary King, is an editor very experienced with both FLC and FAC. He is extremely familiar with the requirements and expectations of a page before nominating it, and so they require less feedback because they are usually close to already meeting the FLC criteria. Each subsequent premier list he works on can also take advantage of the comments at the FLCs of the earlier ones, and since they have all been nominated and passed recently it can be assumed that the community agrees that the content, style, etc of the pages meet the criteria without it having to be stated at each FLC. On the other hand, there are only three monarch-y lists at WP:FL - List of French monarchs, List of Portuguese monarchs, and List of Sultans of Zanzibar. The first two were promoted in 2006 but have both gone through WP:FLRC and the Sultan list was promoted on July 1, 2008. We don't get many other monarch-y FLCs, and so there isn't a "pre-exisiting consensus" to look at.
I would ask everyone here to remember that there is no deadline. Just because a list didn't become featured today, doesn't mean it can never become featured. I don't like to "restart" nominations but I have occasionally done it, usually when it is close to the bottom of the list and has recieved only comments from just one person that isn't a Support or Oppose. Archiving isn't supposed to say "you failed" to the nominator, just that the nomination failed to be promoted.
Also, I am aware there is a shortage of reviewers at FLC and FAC. The Rambling Man used to review each nomination until he went on a world tour. I also reviewed every nomination until about 3 months ago, when horrible real life issues meant that Wikipedia was one of my lowest priorities. All I can suggest is that nominators ask reviewers to take another look at the page and revisit the FLC when their concerns have been addressed, and actually go to people's talk pages and ask them to review (not support or oppose) their lists and give feedback at FLCs. It would also be nice that if people who submitted lists did some reviewing. At time of writing, there are 29 FLCs from 27 different people (including co-noms). Of those 27, 18 have not taken the time to comment at other FLCs. If your nomination still doesn't get the attention you were hoping, don't take offense when I don't promoted it. I am only interested in WP:FL containing the very best lists that we have to offer, and not -- to put it bluntly -- babying people's egos by caring about how many stars they have earned. I do not practice favouritism; I have promoted FLCs submitted by the "regulars", and I have archived FLCs from those same people as well. I pay little attention to who the nominator is and I completely ignore WP:WBFLN.
BomBom, you said this isn't a personal attack, and I don't take it to be. My interest is Wikipedia and I welcome any discussion about FL/FLC and its operation. As you said, a list was originally promoted if it had received four support votes as a minimum for consensus. That rule was abolished because the original nominator counted as one support vote, the nominations were open to vote-stacking and drive-by votes, four was an completely abitary figure, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. I don't mind if people want to discuss bringing that rule back (or discuss keeping it abolished) but I do wonder if we have enough reviewers to get 4 supports.
I hope I answered everything but if not, let me know. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes was archived tonight, but instead of just archiving, for some reason its been completeld deleted?? Is this part of whatever software screw up is happening right now that remove all the JS stuff from the site, including breaking Twinkle and Friendly? Either way, shouldn't it be undeleted? --
AnmaFinotera (
talk ·
contribs) 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It's been that way for two months (since October 25). Something changed in the MediaWiki software, and moves via script stopped leaving a redirect. FAC has a preload for a new page. Among other things, this preload adds a transclusion of Wikipedia:Featured article tools which generates a list of FAC archive links, so a redirect isn't needed for a new nomination. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel Selwood/archive2.) In fact, the redirect was confusing to enough FAC nominators that it required a second edit to replaced it with a starter page. Eventually, FAC will probably have the nomination start at a /archiveN or equivalent page so the moves won't happen at all. But that takes some coordination and time to set up. Gimmetrow 06:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya all, I've seen a bit written about the "minimum 10 entries" rule (see for example three sections or so above). I was wondering how strict this was, as I had an eye to nominating this, but obviously won't if there's no chance of it passing with only 8 entries.
Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. This is only from my perspective. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 spell my name backwards on 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The last comment added on FLRC dated back to December 21st. Don't you guys think we need more users to contribute to the process? -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 (spell my name backwards) at 10:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot of users use Mozilla Firefox here on Wikipedia due to some features only available for FF. However, as of late, sortable tables have had a glitch with Firefox, and when I review lists, the sortable tables do not work for me. I'm just letting people know who do not use FF to check the sortability of the tables, as there could always be a coding problem.-- Tr uc o 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does Peer review have to be linked twice?-- Tr uc o 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it'll be a great idea if we do what
WP:FA does, put a star next to the language page link if the article is featured in another language version, on the list left of the page. Thanks in advance if commenting. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 spell my name backwards on 11:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
These are the wikipedias that have a FL process:
-- Scorpion 0422 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to reply or comment on this section? I'm starting to get this up ASAP. -- signed by
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24 (spell my name backwards) at 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I've recently started to work on a page closely tied to a certain major sporting event that takes place on February 1. If I nominate the page here on the 13th or 14th of this month, it could potentially be promoted or archived a week or so before the game at the earliest. Before I do that, however, I need to know what process the stability criterion plays. Is a list on an upcoming event considered unstable enough to be failed for that reason alone? Nothing that I saw in the talk page archives has anything to do with this. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I withdraw a nom, or is it better to leave it until it is failed? The nom is this and both me and the other editor don't have time the time right now to make the necessary changes. What would you suggest? Chamal talk 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on Controlled substances in Oregon and it's kind of listy (listish?). Would it be appropriate as a featured list candidate? Whether it's comprehensive is debatable. I'm trying to use it as an easy reference overview, without going into the amount of detail at Alcohol in Oregon and other possible articles that could be linked to in it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should just compare
Discography of Final Fantasy III and
Hilary Duff discography. The first one is a good article, while the other one is a featured list. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
review me 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do some featured lists of people have a citation for every person and some don't, even though they have been featured recently (within the last year)? What is the standard here? one with a cite for every person, one without such cites. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There appear to have been two standards on cites for FLs. One standard that each entry must have a cite, the other that the linked article provides the cite. The issues I see with the linked articles providing the cite are:
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Per this conversation, are the only people allowed to nominate FLCs "experienced editors"- i.e. people who already have several FLs? I'm not experienced enough with the FLC process to know. Thanks. jj137 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals about splitting off information from the main article. In this case, the list of finals and finalists has been split off from the main FIFA World Cup article. Some at the current FLC feel that this is a " content fork", and should not be an article. What does anybody else think? My feeling is that dozens of sports head coach, manager and draft pick lists have been promoted at FLC since last June or so. In this way, we have set a precedent. Should we continue to allow such lists, or should we nominate them for deletion? Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll put in my two pence. (Please note I am not commenting on the "List of FIFA World Cup finals", but on forking/splitting in general.) The way I see it, the real problem here is considering when the size of the "list" in a main article is large enough to be spun off into its own list. IMO if the main article retains the list after "splitting" then surely that is a fork (an FL example might be that List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches could very easily be put into Atlanta Falcons#Head coaches). The unwritten 10 item rule already exists and prevents silly small lists and unnecessary splitting to some extent, but we may need to re-iterate to people that meeting this does not automatically justify having its own list. Whether something needs to be added to the criteria, WP:FL? already states "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content" so I don't think it needs its own criteria, but maybe just a case of linking to content policy and guidelines at the top. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A situation at List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) brings up an issue that also arises in other contexts. Featured lists tend to be annotated or contain images and text, like [1], but some readers/editors want a "short list" like [2]. Is there any reasonable way to satisfy both camps? Any precedent? Gimmetrow 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. We'll try this again. This isn't an argument on what a featured list ought to look like. The question is - are there any topics on Wikipedia covered by both annotated lists and short lists? The answer to that is: Yes. Some TV series have annotated lists for each season and a short list for all episodes together. Now, is there any way to generalize that or make that applicable to the Hot 100 case? Gimmetrow 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
USNumber1s}}
. Which type do we link to from there?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 02:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)I found an example in the UK Singles Chart, apparently each year have a page with a summary and the everything like: 1996 in British music, now there is also a page for the List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK), which covers the entire decade but is basically the same information. Frcm1988 ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
..why can't the FLC noms have a pre-load article like it is on FAC, with a nominators stamp, toolbox, and the name of the article already loaded into the article?-- TRU CO 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) We will have to test and see. I think that the ability to cap is important (so much easier and efficient than striking). Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
So whats the followup on this? I generally see the acceptance of the idea to have a pre-load template like at FAC. Can we have a 'discussion here where people can voice their opinions by supporting, opposing, or commenting (not voting). In addition, is there a way to get this on the ads located on the watchlist?-- TRU CO 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I would support such a motion if it did not affect reviewers' ability to cap resolved comments. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It seems to work, let's do it! Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay done, implemented. Gary King ( talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
clear}}
to the preload, but reviewers (and nominators) have to know to not delete the substituted clear template.
Dabomb87 (
talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
← Also, adding {{
clear}} to the preload is not the most elegant solution. Instead of using a div tag, using a table tag will solve the problem. Right now, people are using {{
hidden}} right? Well, I created {{
hidden/FLC}}, so just add /FLC
to the template's name and voila, it won't intersect with the toolbox, but it should still retain the same functionality that {{
hidden}} offers.
Gary King (
talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Team record FLs are inconsistent in their usage of "List of" in the title. One baseball team records page uses it, but another doesn't. The nine FLs on soccer club records also have no uniform standard. Shouldn't these be made consistent, one way or the other? If so, which way is better? Giants2008 ( 17-14) 05:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the primary contributor and creator of List of Australian George Cross recipients, which has been nominated by another editor with out my consent for FLC. I do wish to eventually take the article to FLC, but this is premature as I was still seeking advice on the article and have it up for Milhist ACR. Would it be possible to remove the nomination completely? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that if any project rates a list as an article (start, B, C etc) instead of "List", the the article doesn't inform readers that it is up at FLC, even if other prjects rate it as list. As i think some projects don't use use list class, can this be fixed, so that a FLC is always noted on the page, whether or not all projects call it list class? Yobmod ( talk) 11:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::My setting make it so that pages always tell me "This is a xxx class article". And if they are submitted for FL, it tells me that too. At
Gaylactic spectrum award winners, the talk page has 2 banners - one is rated List and the other B. This caused the page to say "This is a B class article" (which is fine), but also did not display "currently a FLC". (I changed both to list and it worked fine - now changed back so others can see).
I've just noticed the text flows into the toolbox on this FLC. I don't know how to fix this at the moment. Can do it and then I can learn for the future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I fiddled around and managed to fix it by simply adding another blank line [3] Before it wrapped, but I was wondering if this is the standard fix (not just coincedence) and whether an extra line in the toolbox?/preload? template(s) might prevent this from happening in future. I am asking as I am not going to try and fiddle with something I don't know enough about. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let nominators and reviewers know that the temporary injunction by ArbCom against the use of this script applies only to "mass delinking". Nominators and reviewers are welcome to continue its use to satisfy Cr. 5 (compliance with the style guides). Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Has the naming convention for these types of lists changed? User:Otto4711 has renamed dozens of these lists. Gary King ( talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the articles Otto4711 moved was one I created, List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie, and when I initially saw the move I simply shrugged. When I originally created the article, I named it List of David Bowie awards and nominations because I saw that most of these kinds of lists were named that way. When I took it to FLC, however, Gary King moved it to its current name. Again I just shrugged and thought, "whatever it takes to get through FLC" (I've done three now and it still unnerves me). But having read erachima's argument at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris, I have to agree that the List of awards [and nominations] received by Foo format is better. I would think that most people would know who David Bowie is, so there wouldn't be any ambiguity between either format for the title, but I (and probably quite a few others) haven't heard of Ludacris and, if it was List of Ludacris awards and nominations, I could see how someone unfamiliar could wonder if it was the name of the award or the name of nominee/recipient. If consistency is the name of the game, then I would suggest that List of awards [and nominations] received by Foo is less ambiguous and the List of Foo awards [and nominations] should be moved even though there may be a greater number. -- JD554 ( talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You started a discussion on a category talk page that likely not a lot of people have on watch and then claim nobody objects. You should have gone to WP:MUSIC, which is where this discussion belongs. -- Scorpion 0422 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)