Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:CRIC

Previous discussion has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/archive1

[edit] Is some images better than no images?

If I cannot find images for every member of a list, would it be better to not have images for any of them to keep the list looking consistent? I'm working on the {{Canadian First Ministers}}, and for some provinces I cannot find images for all premiers. Some already-featured lists of heads of government have reached featured status without having pictures of every person, so a complete set of images is not needed for nomination. Would a list be more likely to pass if it had no images at all and looked internaly consistent rather than including all the images I could find? --Arctic Gnome 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for "none." Because they strech out the table and don't look too pleasing. Renata 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a quick reply, thanks. In terms of images stretching out the table, I should point out that before I submit any more of the lists I will fill out the table with more information (like links to elections) like there is on List of Prime Ministers of Canada, so the columns beside the images won't be all empty space. Not sure if that makes a difference to your opinion, but it's something to keep in mind. --Arctic Gnome 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a FL "has images if they are appropriate to the subject", so I would say some images is definately better than no images. In fact, if a list would benefit from an image or images (and they exsist), then their absence would could against their candidacy. Tompw (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have images for all but a few, some kind of placeholder image or blank space is appropriate. If you lack images for many, how about having the images in a table or gallery by themselves (just images, with captions). If you have images for only a few, then they might be appropriate as regular thumbnails in the lead and througout the list. --129.241.214.53 12:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10 days? Propose change

That's awfully short when you look at participation here. What would be people's general opinion if I were to change it to 14 days? (Many are up 14 days or so anyway, so the policy change would be somewhat superficial). I won't if there's some opposition, but I don't see the harm.--Wizardman 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do something like AfD, where if there aren't enough contributors to generate consensus then it is relisted at the top? I generally only contribute to FLC topics that I have some experience with but I would try and make the effort to review any that are relisted. VegaDark 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea, probably a better idea than what I have. Technically FAC's do that as well, so that shouldn't cause any dispute.--Wizardman 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in increasing the minimum to more than ten days. The guidelines already say that if a list has not gathered enough support votes in ten days, then it just stays there for a short additional peroid. (Assumeing no ongoing objections) Increasing the minimum would just mean that lists with enough support votes hang around for longer. Tompw (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have some way of indicating that a list has gone into extra-time. By "relisted", I assume you don't intend to reset the clock? Could we have some banner or bold text saying e.g. "This FL candidate is now in extra time." Colin°^Talk 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main problem is about half the FL's seem to fail solely due to lack of votes. I'm not sure what to do exactly, but the way it is now is troubling. Perhaps changing it from 10 days to "after sufficient votes and time" might help? Cloins idea isn't to bad, I just don't want things failing solely due to lack of votes.--Wizardman 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with leaving nominations for additional time is that it doesn't prohibit from failing if the sufficient amount of votes is yet to be gathered. This recently occurred to Canadian Newsmaker of the Year (Time), which failed 20 days after the original nomination with a single support. My solution to this would be changing the promotion time to "whenever there appears to be consensus" as already done on WP:FPOC and WP:FAC. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say "whenever there appears to be consensus, and at least 10 days". There should be a lower limit to allow the more infrequent visitor to these pagesa chance to comment on proposals. A question: should lack on of consensus for promotion be a reason to fail? Tompw (talk)

Well "consensus" usually means at least there good-standing editors without any concerns present. There really isn't a need to have unnecessary instructions. Yes, lack of consensus may lead to failure of the nomination — when the issues don't get fixed for a substantial amount of time, that is. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who can promote?

I think we should tidy this up. Someone has created a new account today, explicitly stated that they are a buddy of one of the FLC authors on their userpage, and promoted that FLC despite it being 3-2 excluding obvious socks, having 50% redlinks and not sourced properly. I think we should knuckle down on a more serious criteria on who can promote these things. I had to rollback that bogus FLC passing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking back, the only supports on that FL are socks and meats <100 edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, previously, is anybody allowed to promote a FL? That's interesting… I never knew that! :-) I suppose it could be by # of edits (100, 500, etc.) and/or by length of time been here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say "editors in good standing", or even admins only; we could adopt something like the non-admin thing at WP:DELPRO, regarding "editors in good standing can close obvious one-way-or-the-other ones after x days (the full allotment)", and "only admins can make tight calls". Daniel.Bryant 06:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that only admins can promote on the grounds that adminship is not suppose to be a big deal and that there are plenty of trustworthy editors without admin status. I do, however, agree that some kind of "good standing" requirement is needed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FL just isn't getting enough reviewers for us to start formally restricting who can do what. And anyway, if someone stepped out of line, what would you do that you wouldn't do just now? I'm not aware of any regulars who are admins. The only recent examples of mis-promotion (two cases) were done by editors unfamiliar with the rules and naturally keen to promote their own (or a friend's) work. We need to correct any impression that it is a vote or that an oppose can be ignored lightly. Perhaps we should move the "To archive a nomination" section to a sub-page and expand it. It would then have room for some guidance. There may be some merit in having a list of people who are willing to participate in promotion/fail part of the process – so that editors have a list of people they can as for guidance. Colin°^Talk 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go and appoint a small group of people, or something, if possible, not for any malicious purposes, but because Featured Content should be high quality, and to maintain high quality, we should have consistency amongst the judgment of what to promote or reject. The thing with AfD for instance, is that there is actually quite a lot of variation in the non trivial debates. It's only about two entries per week, and it isn't going to kill anybody if their FLC waits another day or two for the official rites. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been ignoring WP:FLC for a while, and rune.welsh seems to be away too. I think that, until about December, we were the ones who actually processed promotions (and - not that this is very relevant - we both happen to be admins, as are various other FLC participants). However, I don't think we need to formally appoint a group of people who are "authorised" to promote - many hands, light work, etc. What is important is that the FLC participants and the persons undertaking the promotion have common, widely-understood and consistent standards for promotion. We need to be clear what the criteria for promoting are - in particular, we need to make sure that lists are not promoted where there are unresolved objections. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

People who have promoted/failed lists in 2007: ALoan (3 lists), myself (29), Colin (1), Blnguyen (7), User:The Bread (2), Rune.welsh (5) Michaelas10 (1) ... (a total of 48 - either I've missed someone, miscounted or three got done without the summary saying anything). Ummm... not sure if this is a good state of affairs or not. I don't think one person should be doing two thirds of all promotions, because it doesn't look good. *is now somewhat embaressed*. Tompw (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, well done, and thanks :) That is slightly more diverse than I had expected, actually - and I only just did my three yesterday*! I think Rune.welsh did most last year, but he has gone missing. As I said, I will try to look in more often. It is not such a problem for one person to do most of them - one advantage is that a single closer will probably be reasonably consistent with themselves. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

* and a fourth today. I think this month's failed counter was out by two, if that helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)