Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

"Official oppose"

I'd like to have it explained to me what an Official oppose is, who can make them, and on what authority. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

At present there are two de facto promoters and failers of featured list candidates, ALoan and myself, though I'm sure we'd welcome others to the role. Largely it's an automated process - a nomination with five supports and no opposes will be promoted, one with two supports and three opposes will be failed. Once in a while, there's a need for a judgment call, which is sometimes to leave the nomination open for a few more days to allow for more comment, and sometimes used to promote or fail lists. There are, however, basic requirements to a featured list, and References is an essential requirement. When about to promote two lists yesterday I noticed that in one case there were no references, and in another, there appeared to be inadequate references. For that reason I delayed promoting these lists for four days to allow that issue to be addressed. Had there been full references, I would have promoted them (they clearly have sufficient support for promotion once references have been added). At present, it seems some think I have been over-eager in my request for more refs to the tube station list. I'm happy to bow to the community - and at present I fully expect that I'll be in a position to promote both lists on Christmas Day (once the additional four days I have allowed have expired), jguk 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, jguk and I have historically made most of the promotion decisions, but that is rarely a difficult task and anyone could do it if they felt so inclined. We don't have a ratified director like Raul654 on WP:FAC or the Bureaucrats on WP:RFA, and I don't think we really need one (many pages seem to get by without a specific person being is anyone "in charge" - WP:FPC or WP:DR or WP:AFD). I'm also not convinced that we need "official" oppose votes, any more than "strong" or "weak" support of opposition means very much. A plain "oppose" is sufficient for me. (If we are going to have "official" opposition, I think Filiocht should be on the list, as he created this page). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposing

Also, the criteria for lists include the fact that it must have a majority of blue links. If the majority of blue links in a candidate are links to stub articles, is someone allowed to object on that rationale? IMO, it doesn't strictly violate the letter of the criteria, but it does violate the spirit of them. There seem to be several people, please don't name names, who create a bunch of short stubs to blue a bunch of red links. Tell me that people don't do that so they can artificially meet featured list criteria. Tell me that people create featurable lists to show off the best of Wikipedia, rather than doing it for its own sake. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This practice is quite common in FAC too, where it is generally accepted. I personally don't like it, but as long as the stubs are informative enough... I wouldn't consider it a strong enough reason why to oppose a nomination. But that's me. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists that don't have links

This issue came up in the recently nominated List of Mega Man weapons... some lists simply don't link to any articles, because the list in itself is a compilation of the information on the subject. Such lists frequently occur as a result of merging articles, for instance in the area of fiction or lesser-known media figures (e.g. candidates of Some Show), or other items that have little information on them, such as minor planetoids. Is there any particular reason why such a list cannot become featured? If not I propose amending the What Is page accordingly. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why that should be a problem. We certainly shouldn't be creating links if decisions have already been taken that those articles are better dealt with in a single list format. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Some lists are informative enough, and even provide external links to related items. -Zero^Talk 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

I don't want to put this through featured list candidacy yet, but wondered what you guys thought (need a peer review process). I am not very well versed with lists, and am currently creating this: List of Anuran families. What do you all think? What is required to put it through to featured list? I would also like to create more columns, but cannot for the life of me think of anything to add. Any ideas? --liquidGhoul 10:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PR is available for lists as well as articles. But that is a rather nice list already - I doubt that WP:PR would add much, but it may be worth trying.

Having an image for each entry would be nice, as well as eliminating the redlinks, and adding example species for each line. You will also need some references. Good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will do WP:PR, for some reason it didn't cross my mind. As for the photos, I am really trying. User:Pstevendactylus is going to the rainforest, and he said he is going to try and get some glass frogs. Hopefully other families as well. He has quite a collection of photos, but has to put time which he doesn't have to upload them. I would like to only get good licence photos, and want to completely avoid any other types, however this does make it hard for families like Rheobatrachidae which haven't been seen since the early 1980s. --liquidGhoul 11:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nature of List (and a Featured List)

List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms is an extremely strong article and undeniably a list. However, the nature of the article is to present information in text form with the storms listed, and not all of the storms have their own separate articles. While I am currently considering nominating it as a featured list, I'm not entirely certain that it fits the criteria of being a list in the Wikipedia sense. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 02:19 (UTC)

A strong article/list indeed. The FL criteria says: ... must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links). Here we have 17 or the 30 list items linked. But it is so well done and presented, I'd be voting support, so my advice would be list it and see what happens. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it. 69.86.17.202 And logged in. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 03:46 (UTC)

Who administers the promotion?

Does an admin officially have to change the status of the FLC? It seems that a normal editor can simply stick the template into place? Anyway,

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chief Ministers of India - no votes
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tallest structures in Paris - (6-2) including nominator vote
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Swimming World Swimmers of the Year - (4-0) excluding nominator

have all passed the 10 day mark

Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of recent times ALoan and Rune.welsh have been doing the promotions and archiving, but technically anyone can do it and you don't have to be an administrator -- Ian ≡ talk 04:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As Ian says, in principle, anyone can do it when they see that it needs doing (we are not quite to hide-bound by rules and regulations as the WP:FA crew ;). The instructions are on the page; no admin abilities are needed to do any of the updating. But if you are going to do it, please make sure you do all of the updating (archiving, talk pages, WP:GO, etc), otherwise it all gets rather messy. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

100th FL

Depending on how you count, we have either just passed, or will reach in the next few days, the 100th featured list. See Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Age

How old should a list be before it is put forward for nomination; I ask specifically about Nuclear power by country, which seems to fulfil all the FL criteria, but was only created today. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in nominating "fresh" lists as long as they meet the requirements. Actually there was one list nominated I believe the second day it was created, but it failed. Not because it was too new, but because it failed the requirements, especially citing references. I think the list above is really good and it gets my support. Renata 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated this one day after it was created(I did some sandbox work before that tho). It seems to be doing well, with no concerns about the list(so far). I don't beleive age should be a factor. Joe I 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Red link discussion

I have started a discussion on red links here, but am guessing that not many people are watching the page. If you would like to discuss it, please do. Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured? lists

How can they be featured if they won't be displayed at the Main Page? --Howard the Duck 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they couldn't be featured. Seems worth bringing up with the people who work on the Main Page. -- Samuel Wantman 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do now realize that this was the wrong place to ask. Perhaps this should be at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. --Howard the Duck 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not too surprisingly (having authored two FL myself), I'd support this, strongly. —Nightstallion (?) 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that myself the other day. Maybe we can convince some people to get some real-state on the Main Page during the weekends or so. I'll contact Raul654 to see what can be done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The opposition to this is where should the FLs be placed, or if they'll replace a part of the main page. --Howard the Duck 07:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Pictures existed long before they got a permanent spot on the Main Page (even before they got a temporary spot at weekends). "Featured" simply means selected as representing the best of Wikipedia, having met the relevant criteria.

It should be possible in principle for a Featured List to replace one of the other items on the Main Page. Traditionally, these sort of ideas have been trialled at weekends. Ideally, a Featured List could replace Today's Featured Article on Saturday and/or Sunday, since the lists and articles are essentially comlpementary, but I doubt Raul654 will like that :) Perhaps a Featured List could replace DYK, like the Featured Picture used to at weekends; or perhaps the Featured Picture could be replaced by a Featured List at weekends? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the best idea might be to replace featured pictures on weekends. —Nightstallion (?) 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from concerns related to where on the Main Page should we put FLs, Raul654 thinks lists may not be as engaging for the readers as regular articles. To some extent he's got a point there (think of all the cricket lists, which tend not have much prose) but there are some others which could be quite interesting, like the lists of birds. In any case, I'd go for a weekend spot, probably in place of DYK which recently has had some problems with being updated regularly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

List of countries with nuclear weapons is a great candidate for the Main page. CG 16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That one would stand a decent chance on FAC, if it were refactored slightly to make it look a little less of a list. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have raised this on Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't seen too much further action on Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. I've tried to urge them on, but nothing's really taken off. Anybody with a bit more influence care to try something to get lists featured? As an author of 2, it would be really fantastic to see… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images on lists

Regulars of FLC may be interested in a (more or less) current Request for Comments regarding the use of fair use images in lists. It can be found at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New collaboration

I wrote the some post in WP:FL, but it seems that that page isn't watched much. Well, what do you think about creating a collaboration which aims at promoting lists to FL status? CG 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations on lists of people after each name?

I've been working on getting List of Oregon State University people up to FL status and I submitted it for peer review. One of the comments was that each name should have an inline citation after it instead of simply listing all the refs at the bottom as general references. Is this in fact what should be done? For all the football players, that would be one VERY long list of ^{a b c d e f} etc. next to the reference. I'm not sure what it does past 26, but it would far exceed that. VegaDark 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think Sandy's comments on inline citations are fair. However, there are no rules as to how to do the citations, see WP:CITE. They don't have to be hyperlinked superscripts leading to backward-hyperlinked notes. Some variant of the Harvard ref might be appropriate. I'm not familiar with that style and may be unsuitable if there is no name or date. The OSU Famous Alumni page would appear to be written by George P. Edmonston Jr but there is no date. You could invent your own variation, if it is understandable: "Edmonston, OSU Alumni". Then make sure your references at the bottom can be easily tied back to the citation in the text. Colin°^Talk 08:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

10 days?

I nominated Narnian timeline for FL status on 13 November and it was closed 23 November, after 10 days, as is policy. However, only one person had commented on it (and it wasn't a "support" or "object" vote either, just a comment which I think I resolved). I feel that failing a nomination after 10 days makes no sense, it may be that people just didn't see it or that people declined to comment on it. I think a nomination should be left until some sort of consensus is reached -- or at least one vote is made. Failing it based on lack of participation, rather than quality, is self-contradictory.--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always considered lack of participation as a sign that the list is not ready yet. We have many experienced regulars in FLC already as to be able to afford that assumption. In any case, advertising of nominations is allowed as long as it does not ask people to vote one way or the other. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the point, even though I don't entirely agree. I'll go put a notice in at the VP and Esperanza, and renominate it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm… I must have been out of touch at ESP and the VP for a while. Isn't there some sort of place where you can list bulletins about goings-on in the community? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of Fiction wikiproject might be more appropriate than a general forum, which might grow tired if every featured candidate was advertised. Colin°^Talk 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See, but a Fiction WP might be biased. Oh, well. There is still one issue in need of citing in the list. I'm searching for a reference now. I'll wait till I find it and then just renominate it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some members of relevant WikiProjects may be slightly biased, in terms of lending support to articles within their scope where it may not be deserved, but they also tend to be the most knowledgeable about the subject, its references, etc. If an article does not generate much interest within 10 days, it is usually an indication that it is not good enough, although most nominators receive some feedback for things that could be improved. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the 4 support rule strictly enforced anyway? List of Indian ODI cricketers passed despite having only three, and with Tintin pointing out that the list was not up to date as was asserted in the text. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When I promote, yes - although I have been known on occasion to add my support to make 3 (plus nominator makes 4) before promoting. Perhaps User:Rune.welsh's promotion included an implicit "support", but you would have to ask him to know for sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My support is usually implied (I don't bother editing the nomination because promotion takes many clicks already). In cases when I oppose, I let the nomination run a little more. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's encouraging. I'll go inquire at the Fiction WikiProject. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I resubmitted the article after referencing it, and hope you'll all take a look at it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

promotion proceedure

In the section "To archive a nomination", shouldn't there be somethign about putting {{Featured list}} in the article itself? I ask because List of Saskatchewan general elections didn't get this added when it was promoted (I've since added it myself). Tompw 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't do that myself, since I don't quite like the idea of adding metadata to the articles. Usually other people do it after the week's Signpost goes live. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on possible candidate?

The opera corpus. Problems: As a straight-out comrehensive list of simple factts, it's verifiable by any encyclopedia of music, but not significantly cited as that would be awkward, given the facts are not disputed. Is it worth submitting? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You still need to explicitly cite your source(s) at the end of the article. If one source has been used for the whole list, you need to make sure it is not a copyvio to duplicate it here. Other than that the number of redlinks may be an issue. Other reviewers may come up with their own ideas of how to improve this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• nod* pretty sure it's actually compiled from several, as everyone can expand it. I'll see if I can find a source or sources with everything. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility for FL status

There's been some discussion following a failed GA nomination as to whether or not English football league system would be eligable for FL status. My main concern is whether or not it contains too much prose before to be eligable to be a "list"... what do people think? Tompw (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of participation

I've notied of late that more and more articles are not makign the cut for FL status. Not because they're bad lists, but because there aren't enough people voting on them. Articles will go two weeks with two votes. This shows me that there's a problem somewhere, and I'm thinking less and less it's due to the lists themselves. Do we need to try and get more people to be regulars here? What should be done with this? As far as I know FA and FP never have this problem. --Wizardman 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for more reviewers over at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Is there anywhere else we should try? Colin°^Talk 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A related problem is lists that have enough support votes and enoguh time has elapsed, but don't get promoted. I would suggest maybe leaving messages on previous voters' talk pages, askign them to vote on at least one page. Tompw (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 three 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)

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)

During a recent spat

User:Spebi closed the FLC nomination for The Simpsons shorts sans the necessary four supports, citing consensus gained through a lack of opposes. While I'm fairly certain that this is a result of a lack of people looking at the article rather than people not finding anything wrong with it, I'm not opposed to such early closes. To have this, however, would require a "featured list director" or two in the vein of Raul or Sandy at WP:FAC in order to determine whether consensus is really present. At the recent FLC nominations for List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1), List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2), and List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3), each nomination basically sat for multiple days after the ten day limit with three supports, and consensus was clearly in favor of it passing. Again, someone will have to take on a "featured list director" role for this to work, but it could be done. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. Just because I stuffed up in your opinion doesn't mean that we should immediately implement some guy to run the whole show. For the record, I closed that FLC because I saw that consensus had been reached, and decided to ignore the "4 supports" rule. Let me make a note of the fact that your list of episodes, Sephiroth, are pretty much in the same boat as The Simpsons shorts. Both ran for the right time, both received not enough supports under the current rule, and both were promoted – I really don't see any difference, apart from your "certain-ness" that The Simpsons shorts didn't get those extra supports because it wasn't running long enough (which it was). Spebi 08:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm just raising the point for possible discussion on the matter. Also note that those episode lists do have four supports, as the nominator counts as a support. I'm less worried about your close and more that this simply adds a precedent for people to arbitrarily close such nominations citing WP:IGNORE when such nominations are of lists that shouldn't be promoted, and suffered from a lack of enough eyes on the article rather than the article lacking any such flaws. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because I did it doesn't mean everyone else is going to start doing it. I think that newbies to FLC closing will be more inclined to strictly follow the rules in place about closing, rather than immediately closing prematurely and citing WP:IGNORE. So let's get this straight: your lists and The Simpsons shorts both ran for the right time, both had opportunity to receive feedback in the form of opposes. How come no one screamed "premature close" on your lists, but on The Simpsons shorts, who are in pretty much the same circumstances? I'm not going to continue the debate over your lists and the one I promoted, however, I will say that I believe that I acted appropriately by closing the FLC with only 2 supports. As for the director, you only suggest that one be implemented to prevent this sort of stuff from happening. I don't see any point of putting one in. Spebi 08:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because there are four supports on those lists. Mine and three other users. Anyhow, I was bringing this up just since I was curious about any implications of such a proposal. 'night, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As an occasional visitor to these pages, I agree that closing that FL with one non-nominator support was inappropriate. That is far too low a level to show a general consensus that the list was of the highest quality to be found on Wikipedia. These are not the most highly trafficked pages, unfortunately, which is why the "overtime box" developed. It does not matter in the grand scheme of things if lists wait beyond the 10 days to gain the necessary level of support. Consensus should be measured by those who actually participate, not by assuming that others who have been to these pages tacitly supported. On the contrary, someone may have been tempted to oppose this one but thought it unnecessary in the absence of any sign that consensus was moving in favour of promotion. It is also "unfair" on those lists that have consistently been closed as "fail" on the grounds of lack of 4 support votes for one closer to decide that the standard should change without prior discussion. Bencherlite^Talk 09:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we reach some sort of consensus about it, we should not close any FLCs before it has four supports, and I don't think an FL director is really needed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

An issue that needs clarifying

If List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) was divided into List of Naruto episodes (season 1) and List of Naruto episodes (season 2) (and coincidentally, List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) as well), would an editor be able to remove the featured status if there was a consensus to split the article, or would WP:FLRC be necessary? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have to automatically be delisted, then the two new lists would have to be nominated. But why would you want to split them? The page isn't that long. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just that the manner in which they were initially split was rather arbitrary, and was based around a desire to deal with less vandalism rather than concentrating on the pages themselves. Given that practically every single other episode list that composes multiple seasons (List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes) uses singular seasons, there's really no reason for these lists to deviate either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's necessary. The page looks good as it is and not every list has parts for single seasons. In fact, only the really notable primetime shows and a few animes have pages for seperate seasons. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I'm leaving it to local consensus as to how they wish to treat the issue. I was just curious over whether a singular use could remove featured status in that situation, or a nomination at WP:FLRC would be necessary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Few people seem to regularly visit Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates.

That problem could be solved by having removal noms posted on the same page as regular noms.

There doesn't seem to be that many noms to remove anyways, and all they need is "(remove)" added to the title.

The Transhumanist 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal noms are already transcluded here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn. The Transhumanist (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gimmebot?

Today, Gimmetrow offered to help use with us with his bot, which helps out Raul when he closes FAs. It is run semi-automatically. It looks for new tranclusion in the pass/fail logs, tags them as closed, moves the page if it's a fail (to make room for a later nomination), and updates the article/list talk page. We would still edit the log to add the transclusion, and put the article on the WP:FL list. Here is an example set of bot edits for a former FA.

I have considered asking him in the past, but I'm not entirely sure if it's necessary. Raul closes 20 FAs at a time, whereas here my record for most closes at once is seven, so there isn't as much work involved. However, since I'm not the only one who closes FLs, if anyone else thinks it would help, I'd be willing to switch over. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am not involved in the FL process, but I can just say that from seeing GimmeBot (talk · contribs) in action with WP:FACs, I think it is a good idea. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • I think it is a good idea, though I am only a commentator and yet to actually close an FLC. I think more interaction with the article history template, and more automation, can only be a good thing. Woody (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How things work with the Gimmebot

I've decided to use the Gimmebot for all my future promotions. User:Gimmetrow has the page on watch and says he'll be able to have it up and running within hours of a promotion. However, the process is still only semi-automatic, and there are still some things that need to be done manually:

• For promoted lists:
  1. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists.
  2. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.
  3. Update Wikipedia:Featured lists, including the count at the top.
  4. Add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages.
  5. Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.
• For lists that fail to be promoted:
  1. Transclude the discussion to this month's log of failed candidacies.
  2. Update the log tallies in {{Featured list log}}.

You no longer have to leave any kind of message on the FLC page, or update the actual article. The bot works by reading new stuff put in the promoted/failed logs and goes from there. I gave it a test yesterday and it worked well enough, so I think I'll start using it from now on. However, it means that we would have to eliminate the vote tallies, but I'm thinking of perhaps adding a special box for that that would only have the final tallies, and then the bot could still add the normal stuff.

If anyone has any questions about the bot, ask User:Gimmetrow. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Used it today, works well. I just added in a comment at the bottom of the nom. Seems like a sensible move to me, especially for the failed noms and the integration with the article history template. Woody (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Process looks nice and efficient. Good decision. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

500 Featured lists!

We now currently have 502 Featured lists, which means we have reached the big 5-0-0! For those who are curious, the 500th one would be the second that I promoted today, which is List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks. Congratulations, and here's to 500 more in 2008. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, bring on 1000. Woody (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, thats cool that my list was #500, I feel so Wiki-cool, lol.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of works by William Monahan

Hello: This list is currently in the middle of a debate on where certain lists w/ prose belong. See:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of works by William Monahan

and

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#List_articles_as_featured_articles_versus_featured_lists

If several FLC reviewers could chime in with their opinions that would be excellent and would really help shape the debate.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this FLC be restarted?

This FLC currently has three support votes, and the nominating editor asked all three to go and vote there: [1] [2] [3] and all three are from his project. In my mind, that ought to be an automatic restart of the nom. Opinions? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction we need to make here is the difference between open canvassing and a friendly notice. Asking a person to review or leave comments at an FLC is perfectly fine, especially in cases where FLCs are sitting past ten days with say three supports. I've had instances where users asked to comment on an article have opposed it. On the other hand, openly asking a user to support is canvassing, and their !vote should be struck and disregarded. The grey area is asking someone to comment that you know will support it without looking at any of the criteria, and here we have to determine whether the line established by WP:AGF is passed or not. In this case, even though I can assume good faith in the user asking editors he has worked with closely in reviewing this article, I would prefer that other people review. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all of the time, I guess this time I was just lucky enough to discover it. His comments seem perfectly reasonable, but I still have my doubts because WP:PW has a long history of supporting eachothers FLCs (I've asked them not to support each other's FLCs before) and not really leaving any comments. In one case, an FLC had support from seven members, only two of whom left comments. The list in question (in my opinion) barely passes the notability test and the table could easily be improved substantially. The user asked these three to look at the FLC after I left comments similar to that, which is why I am suspicious. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I very much dislike any singular person asking another singular person to to go somewhere and comment in a forum that has votes. If the person who was asked just came and commented, giving tips or suggestions, than that is perfectly fine. Also if a certain person has created a bunch of FL's about one subject and someone else creates a list in the same subject area, than asking for input or comments is perfectly fine. I would rather see a note going out to a Wikiproject asking for input than to singular people though, because I could of course go and find four people who would vote Support for Green Bay Packers seasons pretty easily, but that defeats the purpose of having Featured Content. Personally I wouldnt just restart the FLC, instead I would talk to each person involved (if you havent already) and see what their side of the story is and of course AGF. Also, remember that just receiving four supports does make it featured. If there are 4 supports and 1 oppose, but the oppose has a good argument and the corrections havent been fixed, than the list should fail. If it seems like there was inappropriate behavior than I would just indent their votes and let the process go on the way it should. Just my two-cents :-)
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Difficult. I would place a warning at the top of the debate - as we do in stuffed AfD debates - saying this is not a vote it's a discussion. I would also basically ignore any dubious supports when closing (how you define "dubious" is up to your discretion as closer).

Incidentally, I think that it's not the job of FAC/FLC to determine issues of notability. If there's genuine doubt that the candidate should even be an article the proper procedure imho would be to close the debate and send the article to AfD.

Hope that helps. --kingboyk (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with kingboyk that suspension & AfD is the way to deal with article notability. I'm afraid I know nothing about the sport but agree that a single TV program on one cable channel that can't even be bothered to televise the whole thing is fairly minor stuff. Colin°^Talk 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: there is a current discussion wrt vote stacking on FLC/FAC here. Please join in. Colin°^Talk 16:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing reliability of sources in FL candidacies

I'm preparing a discography for possible submission to FLC. When looking at 3 featured discographies, I found questionable sources in 2 of them (the sort that would need a little explanation about the authorativeness of the source in order to placate the reader). 1 of them had blatantly not reliable sources, including a Ukranian MP3 site! I would urge reviewers and whoever closes the nominations to ensure they actually look at cited sources and don't just count the number of footnotes. Otherwise we risk having featured articles which are actually sourced from a load of dodgy websites and that is very, very dangerous. --kingboyk (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Which ones are they and are the sources band specific fansites are some general website? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm making a general point for going forward, I'm not wishing to get anybody into any trouble :) I've tagged the references which are questionable and left notes on the talk pages. They're a variety actually - aforementioned MP3 site, a CD retailer, general hip hop sites, band specific web sites, self-published (i.e. one-man-band) websites, etc. --kingboyk (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at our featured discographies, you'll probably weep. I seem to remember giving yours a hard time aeons ago. The contrast between the KLF discography and supporting articles, and some of the current cruft, is huge. BTW: if you don't get a response to your talk page notes, they should come to FL removal. Just like you, people look at FLs to gauge the standard; unlike you, they won't question what they see. Colin°^Talk 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably did. IIRC, it got about 50% strong support and 50% strong opposition :) I'm currently refactoring it to mirror the existing Featured discographies and have addressed the complaints from last time, so expect it to see back it here soon. In the meantime, if you want to have a look and leave me any comments please do (it's back at The KLF discography). --kingboyk (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with all the sentiments expressed here: I think the way we promote FL discographies still had as ways to go until it is perfect. I'd say this is an especially important thing to bring up since it seems discographies are becoming the most popular type of list to nominate. So perhaps in the interests of forming a better name for FL, we should sweep through the current FL discographies and make comments on the article's talk pages wherever neccessary. And for the record, I think the article talk pages are a better place to do so than people's talk pages. Drewcifer (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List naming convention: "of" vs. "in"

I figured I'd ask here since none of the other possible talk pages have been very active, if at all.

I'm currently embroiled in a tiresome argument with Noroton (talk · contribs) (see our respective talk pages) over the fact I moved his List of mammals in Connecticut. Long story short, the only reason most lists in Category:Regional mammal lists are at "in" is that I haven't gotten around to move them. Otherwise, lists of organisms are at "of", but he's now arguing that because lists in general (as opposed to the relevant topical lists) have both "in" and "of", I can't argue against placing this list at "in". Can anybody try to weigh in? Circeus (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore Circeus' attitude and stick to the subject: I did some thinking before I named the article and even changed the name once. When possible, the names of Wikipedia articles of any standard type should be uniform so that readers who already have a sense of how Wikipedia names things can search for an article with a minimum of fuss. We tend to name geography-specific "List of people" articles as "List of people from Foo" for instance. I don't see a consensus on "list of organisms" articles. Lists of birds by geography, for instance, seems to be done as List of North American birds. (I was wrong: Most bird lists use "of") I did see what looked like a norm for mammals lists at Category:Regional mammals lists, where the vast majority say "in". IF we're going to standardize "List of X by geograpnhy" articles, then we should follow common practice already in place unless there's a good reason to change it. The vast majority of geography-specific lists use "in Foo", especially when the items (buildings & structures, police districts) don't tend to move ("List of rivers in Foo" articles are an exception, and there are a few others). Take a look at Category:United Kingdom-related lists and Category:United States-related lists, and Category:Canada-related lists for examples.Noroton (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (later self edit Noroton (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )

Circeus has cross-posted this at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#List naming dispute: "in" vs. "of" Please respond there. We shouldn't have two different discussions at the same time. Noroton (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD

Now that WP:LOTD is up and running we were trying to expose it to readers at WP:FC by adding {{ListoftheDaylayout}}. This has been controversial. Please comment at Portal_talk:Featured_content#List_of_the_Day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah! I dont like this!

Now I am all for WP:AGF and all here, and I fully trust User:Crzycheetah did all this in good faith, but that still doesnt mean I can agree with what happened. Crzycheetah closed both Royal Rumble (while stating in the edit history he was promoting List of Kingdom Hearts media) and List of United States business school rankings at the same time that he supported each list, and each time his vote became the fourth vote. Now closing an obvious FLC that you participated in (such as a 9 support to no oppose, etc) is probably okay, but closing a highly debated FLC where you became the fourth support vote, and your vote was just Support is not only against WP:COI but of poor taste. That is why Scorpion only comments on or opposes a FLC that he feels he is going to close, that is why the two FLC that I just promoted lacked any comments from me, because the closer is supposed to be objective to the discussion at hand, that is how it works at XFD, RFA, and pretty much every other place in Wikipedia. I would really like to see the discussions that were obviously prematurely closed to be reopened so that they can garner the proper support and be objectively closed, while I also would like Crzycheetah to not do anymore of these types of closes. The two discussions in question can be found at: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Royal Rumble and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings while Crzycheetah's contribs can be found here. Any input is welcome.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those kind of closes are common around here. The nominations you closed today, I opposed, but you went ahead and promoted. Scorpion closed a couple of nom. with opposes, as well. What's the problem?--Crzycheetah 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the two noms I closed: I didn't see any on going dicussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings and at Rumble's nom, the oppose was irrelevant because there was a precedent when an article was passed as a list.--Crzycheetah 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that of the four noms closed today, all but the List of United States business school rankings could have benefitted from a few more days worth of discussion, because the list of Poker hands and Calgary Flames seasons lists all had strong opposition. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its not the fact that there were opposes or discussion (that just stupid, of course noms are closed with opposes on them), it is the fact that you supported a nom at the same exact time that you closed the discussion. I could care less if there are opposes, that is open for an objective closer to decide whether or not the opposes lack merit (which is what I did on the noms I closed, there was obvious consensus to promote from outside editors). The closer though should be separate from th discussion, insomuch that if the closer voted oppose, than I would hate to see the that person close the nom as failed, and vice-versa (Ideally the closer should be totally separate from the FLC (excluding just commenting of course). This is the definition of WP:COI. I would rather see the FLC's get another support from another editor, than you go and close them. You voting and closing at the same time makes it so the FLC lack transparency, usually everyones vote will stand on the main page for a couple of days, or at least a couple of hours, so that each vote can be examined by the community. I just disliked how you supported and then closed in your favor the noms. If you are going to support, then do so and someone else will close them, and if you want to close these then wait for the proper support because if we dont count your support, neither list reached the required 4 supports needed for promotion. Do you see what I am saying?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And my point here is not whether or not the list should have been promoted, we have WP:FLCR if you feel a list shouldnt be promoted, my point is the way that they were not objectively closed. If you have any problems with the ones I closed feel free to bring it to my talk page or in a separate section, I will answer any questions asked of me.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the sentiments expressed here: I just have a problem with promoting an article that clearly has Oppose votes, especially if they are actionable. X number of Supports but even 1 Oppose vote does not equal a consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached within a reasonable time frame, then the FLC should by all means be closed, but the article should not be promoted. That's how FA, a sister project, works, so why not FL? Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To address the oppose subject, if the oppose has been fixed by the nominator, or the oppose is unfounded or doesnt help the article, it can be disregarded, and yes consensus can be reached with oppose votes. If that weren't the case I think we would have like 50 admins, because almost every RFA gets at least one oppose. I see your point about opposes, and if they havent been addresses or are serious issues, than of course the list shouldnt be promoted, but again I am more about setting out a COI issue here, and whether or not closing FLC's that you voted in, in your favor should be allowed.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case though, the point of a discussion is to make a list as good as possible, so if there are comments or opposition, I like to try to give them a chance to be addressed.

And going back a little, I've supported & closed noms at the same time before. Basically, if an FLC has three supports but no opposition and has been there for 15 days, and I think it meets the conditions, I'll support it solely so that it can be passed. This is because we're usually lucky if we get three support votes within 10 days here, so I only support the more obvious ones in order to be able to close them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but the top of WP:FL says that the list requires 4 supports. One support would be the nom, and then one would be the closer, so in theory only 2 people would have to support to get a list passed. I also disliked how he just voted support and closed at the same time. Maybe if he supported and waited a couple of hours than closed it wouldnt have been that bad. Also, he just voted support, which precedence has shown that just voting Support or Oppose usually will get your vote indented or disregarded. I think a combo of things made me unhappy with these closes, and I would rather see him vote support, than have you or me or someone else go and close the nom for the sake of policy and transparency.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As Scorpion has already mentioned, if the nomination stays for more than 10 days, and just in need of one support to be promoted, I can support and close that nomination. In these cases, I don't see any problems. There is no "closer" around here, anyone has a right to close a nomination, even people who expressed their opinions in that specific nomination. I think the only person who shouldn't in any circumstances close the nomination is the nominator, even though there were such cases, as well.--Crzycheetah 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that only opposes without any explanation should be disregarded,. What did you want me to write, "good list" or "I like it"? The reason people support a list or an article is self-explanatory, no need to mention it.--Crzycheetah 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent)(edit conflict)Well if that is the case here at WP:FL, then so be it. I just thought since pretty much everywhere else in Wikipedia, anyone who has voted in a discussion should not close anything unless it is blatantly obvious. Could you imagine if an WP:RFA was at 69.9% and the closing 'crat voted support to get it over 70% and then closed it as promoted? In the future, I would rather see you at least give it a couple hours after your vote, to allow easy transparency of your vote to others, before you close, or preferably, if the nom is even close to debatable, to go to someone else and ask them to close the nom so that, like I said earlier, there is no question of a WP:COI. Also please make sure that in your edit summary you say the name of the right nom that you are promoting (I know this was probably just an honest mistake) but its confusing if you say you are promoting one list while you are actually promoting another. No hard feelings, I just wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page of on how we are closing these things. It seemed a little confusing to me because Im used to how they do it elsewhere in the Wiki. Happy New Year everyone.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I would rather see something other than support, but that is subjective. I have never found nor do I expect to find a perfect list, so I usually try to give a suggestion of what could be changed, or tell them what is good about the list, so that when newcomers do come here, they know what is good and what isnt in a featured list. But I guess its not a must, I just have found that explaining your actions make things a lot easier to understand.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The activity of WP:FLC and WP:RFA can't be compared. Here at FLC, if we get 4 people in 10 days to comment in any nom, we consider it lucky. Especially, the lists that are not as popular and don't have a WikiProject. You should have seen the nominations this summer, some were open for 30 days because there was just one comment or even no comments at all. As for the edit summary, yes I messed up because my comp. saves history and when I typed "promoting" it automatically brought the last comment I made starting with that word. I noticed it just after I already clicked on "save page" and I apologize for that.--Crzycheetah 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My example was just to show how different areas of the Wiki are, and how IMO we should be uniform in our policies about closing all noms. And don't worry about the typo, I figured as much, it just took me a couple of seconds of confusion to figure it out :P
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I find the requirement to have a fixed number of supports somewhat objectionable anyway. Compliance with the requirements and a consensus to promote should be all that's needed. Is there any reason why the requirement for 4 supports was introduced? Is it time to remove that requirement? --kingboyk (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the reason for the four vote minimum is to ensure that at least a few people see the FLC, and then a page can't be passed on one or two supports. Besides, reaching four votes does not guarantee a pass anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Second and subsequent nominations

The instructions say:

If you are resubmitting an article, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the {{FLCfailed}} template of the article's talk page.

I think this is harder than it needs be, and it is liable to leave behind broken links. Imho, it would be easier and better to add a parameter to {{FLC}} for the nomination page name, so that new noms can take the form of e.g. "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography (2nd nomination)".

Would such a scheme present any problems and if not does anyone object to me modifying the template and instructions? --kingboyk (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with the GimmeBot doing things now, it automatically corrects all of the links. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for that as I fixed them myself (sigh) but nonetheless it's still creating extra work. --kingboyk (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

College Football All-America Teams

I have created two sample lists for early College Football All-America Teams. They are:

• 1925 College Football All-America Team
• 1931 College Football All-America Team

Before rolling out further into other years, I would be interested in any feeback that folks here might have.Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this reworded?

In the "Supporting and objecting" section it says "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." However, a user here is currently misinterpreting it as saying that it is okay to ignore the FL criteria if it is not fixable. I believe the user is thinking that the word addressed means fixed, and it has to be something that can be changed, but it shouldn't be that way. I have always interpreted it as being targetted more at opposition based on non-criteria, not opposition based on criteria. Should this be reworded, or is it okay? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Scorpion0422, the meaning behind that statement is to stop people from giving outrageous rationales for opposing. Such as opposing because someone chose blue highlight instead of yellow, or something stupid like that. I think that it may need to be reworded in saying that the only criteria that you can base an oppose on is the FL criteria, that suggestions and comments are of course welcome but opposes must be based on the criteria.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An FL sweeps?

I've been looking over some older FLs and I'm starting to think that we should do an FL sweeps pass sort of thing of some of the pre-2007 lists. Some of these older FLs have fallen into real neglect and unfortunately not enough people notice it. The GA folks often do things like that (more info), although the processes are quite a bit different, we'd still be able to find some of the less maintained lists out there and put them up for review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea to me. While some FLs are well maintained, some of the older ones have not been and in still being listed as FLs, I think they degrade the FL designation. Collectonian (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at some of the older FLs, and I found some that definitely need to be improved so that they are at the current standard. The problem is that if they were FAs, they all likely would have already gone through an FAR by now and would have been improved, but many of them have been neglected.

1. List of particles
2. Battles of the Mexican-American War
3. List of English Twenty20 International cricketers
4. List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers
5. List of Northwest Territories general elections (lack of citations, and the ones that are there follow the old format)
6. List of Canadian provincial and territorial orders
7. List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined
8. List of United Nations peacekeeping missions
9. List of United States Senate committees
10. Periodic table (large version)
11. List of Ohio county name etymologies
12. List of cultural references in The Cantos

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. We should do a pass, and start doing them on a regular basis in some sort of organized way, starting with your list above. How long are you going to wait on your editor warnings before putting them up for review? List of particles, at least, has seen no edits since your 1/12 posting on the talk page. Geraldk (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

With the List of Super Bowl champions, there was a message for almost 2 months and nobody did anything about it until I put it up for FLR, so perhaps we should just go ahead with some FLRs so that people will get to work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but maybe we should try to do a little bit at a time. FLC is already a bit backlogged, so adding 12+ reviews all at once might be a mistake. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

An FLR requires a minimum of 2 weeks, so perhaps 3 or 4 for now, then a couple more can be nominated when the current FLRs finish. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Should we start with the first four on your list, or should we start at the top of the FL list and go a little at a time? Geraldk (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review question

Hi, working on a future FLC but I've never done one of these before. Is there a venue I can go for peer review/ideas before nominating, as I obviously don't want to waste people's time taking something to FLC that is not ready. Thanks Orderinchaos 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the article falls under a certain project, check there to see if they have an "in-house" review process. If not, then submit it for a regular peer review, which can take lists as well as articles. Collectonian (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the volume of featured list candidates, does anyone think the idea of a list peer review would be useful? This would aid greatly in minimising the candidates page, as well as ensuring that all nominations are at least close to being featured list class when they arrive here. Any thoughts? Seaserpent⁸⁵ 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be good (and nice). I have some lists I'm prepping for FL, but would love to be able to get them peer reviewed first. While I think lists can be done in the regular peer review, unfortunately I think a lot of times they get even less feedback than regular ones. :( Collectonian (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else here, but I've rarely had success with peer reviews. My requests have tended to go completely absent of comments, except for the automated review thingie. So I'm not much of a fan of that process. People only seem to give suggestions/comments on articles/lists if a promotion is at stake. That, and dividing the FL workload between two places might actually slow things down rather than speed it up. Drewcifer (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It would all depend on seeing how many people would be willing to be active "list reviewers", I guess. The problem with the present peer review is that it includes a mish-mash of everything; articles trying for FA, articles trying for GA and lists trying for FL - hence reviewers pick and choose what to review. I'd assume that those active in the FL area would be more likely to comment at a list review than at the general peer review, especially if it was favoured that FLCs had been through a list review. I'm fairly active with featured portals, and the way it works there is that any nominations with evident problems are directed to the portal peer review. This stops those seeking comments and improvements clogging up the nomination page just to get feedback - whether or not that would work with the volume we have here is another matter, I guess. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I agree on all points. Stagger the notices on talk pages, those that are working to improve them can be left for as long as it takes. I have left a note on Battles of the Mexican-American War and am watching it. If no-one is watching, I will take it on myself. I do think that FLC is backlogged though, even with a couple of speedy closes recently. I think the trouble is that people are using us as a PR. Back to the point though, we do need a sweep. Woody (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some revisions to the instructions template

I made added a few sentences to the FLC instructions template, and I just wanted to make sure everyone approved. It's basically common sense stuff, but based on some recent FLCs, I figured it was best to reiterate some things. [4] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reducing the length of FLC's

Since we have gotten more and more FLC's here recently, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for reducing the length of nominations that have extended conversation on them. Look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Christopher Walken filmography for two examples of excessively long comments that make the WP:FLC very long. I dont have anything wrong with having long comments, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to maybe shorten these comments. Some ideas I had were add to the instructions that if you feel there is a lot needed, to put your comments on the talk page of the nom page and add a comment to the nom page like:

Oppose See comments on talk page.~~~~ (with a link to heading in the talk page)

This would allow extended conversation to go behind the main nom page and if all the suggestions are fixed then the reviewer can go back and strike the oppose, stating all suggestions have been met.

Or...

Something like they use over at WP:FAC:

I like the use of the hide template personally, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts about the subject or any ideas. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Either would be a good solution, I think. Though sometimes people get protective of their comments when you use the hide template. But, the good thing about the hide template, in my opinion, is that it kind of resets the FLC back to square one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha yeah, it probably wouldn't be good to do it to someone else's comments, maybe just ask them if their comments get really long. But I think it would be especially good for any comments that are resolved, because, as you said, it brings the nom back to square one and if people really want to read past comments, they are just one click away. I was hoping that maybe some of the regulars could start using it so that it could catch on here and persuade others to use it.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I have real problems with an FLC, I tell them to take it to peer review. If it can't be avoided, I try and add them to the talk page of the article. I use the hide template on FACs at the moment, so I think they are a good idea. Woody (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FLRC

I think it should be standard policy on a FLRC discussion page for the first line to explain who has been contacted about the nomination. It is difficult to tell whether the proper people know about an issue. I can see that List of Super Bowl champions had five editors who have twenty or more edits on the page with at least one falling in the last year. It would be great if at the top of each FLRC it said something like

Contacted: WP:NFL and The five leading editors: User:Zzyzx11 User:Psantora User:Smith03 User:KyuuA4 User:Phoenix2 --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the FAR way of doing things is helpful. We could probably just copy over their line about making sure you notify people. Woody (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's not out responsibility to make sure everyone sees it. And usually I'll leave a post at the WikiProject talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is common courtesy. Usually a note to the project talkpage and a note to the previous nominator should be enough. I just think we have to try and do all we reasonably can to ensure it maintains FL status. Woody (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Making something clear

I think we need to make it clear in the header on WP:FLC that lists should not be renominated right after a fail. Even if objections have been fixed after the fail, I think we should have a mandatory time limit between noms for the sake of the community so it doesnt have to keep on reviewing the same list. Maybe a week or something like that. And I also think we should make it clear that noms can be speedy closed if there has not been significant changes from the last failed nomination. Im kind of getting tired of this. Any thoughts?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends... if an editor has made some major chnages in ashort space of time following a rejection, then I see no reason why alist couldn't be re-nomianted in short space of time. I think imposing a formal time limit would act as hinderance. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone does immediately renominate a page without working on it, then we can speedy close it anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the 4-support req?

Can we change so that FLCs could get closed without four supports after ten days yet with clear consensus? That might need appointer an FLC director like at FAC and Raul654... just throwing this idea out. I personally dislike the 4-support rule. Maxim_(talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree there. If we don't have a minimum of support, we could end up with stuff like I've seen happen recently in GAs and FAs where they are passing with only one or two support yet the article very obviously does not meet the criteria. Collectonian (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a firm supporter of the four support rule. It ensures that an FLC is there long enough so that enough people see it. Around here, if an candidate has more than 2 votes after 10 days then it is lucky. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we should get rid of the 4 support rule. At least 3 users have to review one list before it gets closed, ideally one of them should be an expert in the field, another familiar with all of the Wikipedia rules, and the other just an outsider(a non-expert in the field).--Crzycheetah 09:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the proposal, agree with the comments made so far. It would be nice to be able to speed things up here at FLC, but I'd say four-supports is a good amount. Besides, it's really only 3, since the nomination itself counts as one. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Drewcifer (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, keep the four supports. As scorpion says, it is a lucky FLC that has 2 comments after 10 days (unless it has project backing). I think 4 is a good threshold to make sure that it gets adequately reviewed. Woody (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the 4-support rule for reasons stated by others. It ensures that an list gets a de minimis level of review, sooner or later, before being promoted. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the 4-support rule should be kept, not least because it helps ensure enough people look at it. I can recall very few occasions were a list failed due to lack of comments. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning User:Maxim just passed his own nomination by disregarding the 4-support rule.--Crzycheetah 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Good catch. That's completely uncalled for, Maxim. --Golbez (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a major conflict of interest. People shouldn't be able to pass their own nominations, not even admins. For those wondering, the FL in question is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lester Patrick Trophy, and the promotion attempt has been reverted. Collectonian (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have closed my own nominations in the past (back in the day when I was the only one actively closing them), however I never closed them if they had opposition. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was only following Scorpion's example. And there's no difference if I'm an admin or not. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All good but as a rule of thumb, never close your own noms. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think there's anything too controversial about closing your nom provided it's unanimous, like in that case. It was done before at FLC and it wasn't a big deal, but if most prefer that not happen, so be it. Maxim_(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I just think that not closing your own noms avoids the inevitable (perceived) conflict of interest. I don't see the rush in these things. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one who has promoted his own FLC's in the past, I feel there is no reason to ban it, so long as the nominator thinks carefully before they do it. If it's clear and unaminous, then there's no problem, but any hint of dispute should be left for someone else to judge. As has been pointed out, there's no rush. Tompw (talk) (review) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There's enough users out there who know how to close these things, you shouldnt close your own noms. I brought this up early when this happened, and it was sorta dismissed. I still stand by my belief that you shouldnt close your own. I mean if it is that urgent that you need it closed now, then come and bug me, or some other regular contributor here and if it should be closed then it will be closed. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

US v. U.S.

A recent discussion on Depeche Mode discography prompted this. Please check the Style guide on Wikipedia:

In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. When referring to the country in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned along with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US or U.S. can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the US). When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. USA and U.S.A. are not used unless quoted or part of a proper name (Team USA).

Thanks for your attention, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I've been wondering about that for sometime now... Drewcifer (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop

There is a weekly Signpost column that has some little story about the FA process called the Dispatch. This has since been expanded to include all parts of the featured process and anyone who is interested in contributing stories, ideas, etc. can take a look at the page here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Supports by PeterSymonds

I feel like I have to voice my opinion on these supports from PeterSymonds for all the lists put forward by Gary King. He seems to be simply supporting every nomination put forward by Gary King without so much as leaving one comment as a review. Also, from the comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Toronto, it looks like the two are working together on that article. I'm not saying WP:Canvassing is going on, but it does look fishy. Obviously, if no other editors have noticed, or are not bothered by it, then I guess it's all okay.

Also, I'm not trying to take away from the lists Gary has put forward, and those that have since been promoted. They have all been worthy of been featured. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed this, but am not bothered by it yet. User:Gary King asks around for a review of the lists he's worked on, which is fine. User:PeterSymonds is just helping Gary out. I see that Peter has not made any edits to that Toronto page, but I just noticed that Gary was asking Peter to support that nomination here. This is a little strange to me.

However, I am a little uneasy about the WP:FOOTBALL members supporting one another. I believe there should be stated somewhere that members of the related wikiprojects should be neutral to the nominations. Yes, they can comment on it, but should not support or oppose. I think it's called conflict of interest.--Crzycheetah 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary tends to ask multiple people to look at his articles before he nominates them - PeterSymonds is one of the editors he frequently refers to. I believe it is more or less his honest opinion that goes into his support, as any of the concerns he brings up are addressed before the article is even nominated. As for the WikiProject thing, try to assume good faith. There is definitely the case where there is canvassing, but more often than not, WikiProject reviewers point out things that non-involved editors wouldn't be able to. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're doing right now, assuming good faith. As I said, members of related wikiprojects are welcome to make comments, but should not support or oppose. It just looks like vote stacking when in about 2 hours after nomination, about 4-5 suports come up, all from members of a related Wikiproject; doubts start appearing. If it's a great list, then non-involved reviewers will pass it. --Crzycheetah 07:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone should notify me when a discussion is started about me... anyways, to respond to these allegations, I'll just quote myself from my Talk page: "The main issue is the wording I use when I ask others to take a look at my nominations; I shouldn't use 'support or oppose' but rather ask for 'comments'. I'll be changing that from now on.". Basically, I just wasn't sure of how to best word it; please note that in my requests for someone to comment on my nominations, I always requested for either a 'support' or an 'oppose', so I wasn't pushing for one specific result. But, you guys are right in that I should be 'requesting for comments' instead of either one - that is much more neutral. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have done that, since I started the topic. It didn't even cross my mind though. I'm not trying to take from what you've already got done either.. it just looked a little odd. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Yep I got a list of editors that I regularly notify when I am looking for comments on my nominations, peer reviews, etc. If any of you guys want to be removed from the list, then just let me know... Gary King (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be part of the review policy that a "support" or "oppose" can't be given without the article in question having being clearly reviewed, ie. posting comments first. And I don't have a problem with asking for support or oppose votes, either.-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's unnecessary I believe. If the list does have actual problems, then a single oppose is enough to sink the article's nomination. The proposal is a bit against WP:AGF in any case. If the votes are blatantly canvassed, then they can be discounted, but let's keep it as is. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody directed me to this discussion. I'd like to point out that my supports are my own choice, based on what I see, and not the result of a prompt by Gary King. If I had serious issues with the candidate, I would oppose; and on some of Gary's nominations, I have suggested comments for Gary to work on, and then supported. In the future, if a discussion is being held about my contributions, please notify me. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FL Criterion 1 a bombsite

Well, I set about examining a few recently promoted lists in response to the requests (and what verges on a personal attack) above. The first thing was to put the criteria up on one side of my monitor. Um ... problems with Criterion 1 before I even started. Here it is:

• Most obviously, you don't want the numbering system to duplicate itself on different levels. 1. (a) 1. violates the first principle of presenting a hierarchy. Can someone change the lowest level to lower-case roman numberals, please (I tried, but am unsure how to do it)? 1. (a) (i). But perhaps it won't be necessary—read on.
• The first bolded item, "useful", is not right; I mean, it's the wrong word to encapsulate what is clearly intended in the explanation. I think the best way out of this is to turn the wrongly named "useful" point into a Criterion by itself, as I've exemplified below.
• Please tell me whether the "For example" does in fact introduce a complete list of the three ways in which a list might cover a topic (the use of "or" after the second item makes me suspect that this is the case). If so, the wording should be changed. I find it difficult not knowing whether there are other ways, not stated.
• How does a list bring together a group of existing articles? Seems to say that the full text should be pasted onto the page.
• What are "entry criteria"?
• "the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced"—the inclusion of what? The timeline? The events? Is "objectively" the right epithet, given our well-worked-out policy on verification?
• Does "of study" add anything?
• Is the first clause in the third example ("contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study") not applicable to all lists? Does it not apply when the members of the set are sufficiently notable to have individual articles (second clause, dependent)?
• The final period in 1 is missing.

I can only second-guess what a new Criterion 1 should look like:

TONY (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

All very good points. I agree that we should take a hard look at the criteria to 'streamline' them more. Also, I noticed that the criteria for FLC is longer than the one for FAC, yet has fewer points when summed up. Another goal of ours should be to say more with less words; this encourages people to actually read the criteria if they are more concise but say essentially the same thing as before. Gary King (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• • Two quick comments:
    • Active participants in FLC discussions have not been having difficulty interpreting these criteria, although there is ongoing discussion (it's around here somewhere) regarding the need to clarify 1.a.3 ("contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together...") to indicate that such a list may include some elements that are sufficiently notable to have individual articles.
    • If you would like to nitpick the criteria, please take care not to misuse the word "comprise." ;-)

--Orlady (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Tony, I think it's great that you've dedicated some time away from WP:FAC to help us improve standards here at WP:FLC. Would you be prepared to go over a couple of FLC's right now, regardless of the current criteria (imagine, if you can, you're reviewing a micro-FAC), and let us know what affronts you most? I think most of us are aware of you invaluable contributions at FAC but time after time people have asked for more specific advice. I know you're not a single-handed copyeditor but you presumably accept that since most FAC's are in need of your 1a help, most FLC's will be completely overlooked. I understand the sentiments you have expressed here and look forward to you working with us to help improve our standards. However, your "bomb dropping" seemed a little confrontational (in an impersonal manner) and thus you've elicited some rather negative responses. Regardless of how you feel about the process here, we're all dedicated to doing our best and doing the best for Wikipedia. This is not a "featured factory" where anyone can slip by MOS, grammar, etc but I'm sure most FLC reviewers welcome your constructive and educating input to our processes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

In terms of actually commenting on the content of your text, I do think that the suggested amended criteria are much more concise and clear. I do think that the current FLC debate will need to be factored in though if it concludes that we need to tighten up the existing criteria. I think this is an excellent start though. Thanks Tony. Woody (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Orlady, here is one of the relevant discussions: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1. Gary King (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Response to Orlady: You may choose to characterise my comments as nit-picking, but that is the last refuge of lazy writers; I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if a film were peppered with little editing glitches. In any case, the matters I've raised concern basic structure and meaning, as well as issues at the clause level. I don't know how either reviewers or nominators make sense of the first criterion, so fixing it up is one of the urgent issues to address rather than taking pot-shots at your messenger. Where have I misused the word "comprise"?

Thanks for the other comments; I really don't have the experience here to determine how the unresolved issues should be addressed ("entry criteria", "which", etc.). That is for the experts. And is it the case that there are three, and only three, ways in which a topic is appropriate? Fine if so, but you need to confirm this. TONY (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Orlady, we also have Wikipedia:Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists which is being developed to address the Arsenal FLC concerns as well. Woody (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

That page has not been updated in a few days already. I think we are making more progress here than there. Generally speaking, it's better to spread out similar discussions as little as possible so that we can involve as many people as possible. True, another page may help organize things, but it also slows down the process — especially when the other page is only edited by a few people, and therefore may not actually represent the views of a wider range of editors who regularly visit FLC. Gary King (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I would like to bring up the discussion that Orlady mentioned above; there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Question regarding criteria 1a1 and 1a3 regarding the wording of 1a1 and 1a3: can a list could meet the criteria if some items are existing articles brought together per entry criteria, and some entries are a well-defined set of items that fit together, but are not notable enough to have their own articles? Existing FLs, including List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of Shetland islands, List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester all have some entries with articles and some without. There seemed to a be a small consensus to change the wording to something along the lines of: "a list must contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where all or some of the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." If the criteria is changed, perhaps this possible change could also be taken into account? What are other editors' thoughts on this? The last discussion did not really get a large level of participation. Cheers, Rai•me 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

So, let me get this straight... Based on the new list criteria set out by Raime, none of our current lists of animals/plants/other species for a particular region (country, park, state, province, whatever) will ever qualify for FL, regardless of how well they're constructed or sourced or illustrated. According to "notability" criteria, each list entry (a species of some kind) is worthy of its own article—and now, it's apparently been proposed that "a list must contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where all or some of the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". How is that reasonable?! Are you chucking the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to be able to keep lists of sports teams?! MeegsC | Talk 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

MeegsC, you seem to have misunderstood my proposal. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Criterion 1a1 would not be changed. Obviously, lists that contain items which all have articles would not fail to meet the criteria. Only the wording of 1a3 would be changed. And this would have nothing to do with sports lists - per WP:ATHLETE, all professional sports players are notable, and would not fall into the category where "where all or some of the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Currently, FLs meet the criteria if all entries have articles, the list is a timeline, or no entries have articles. But where does that leave FLs such as List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford, where the tallest building in the city is notable and deserving of its own article, but the 10th tallest structure in the city has no claim of notability and therefore does not have its own article? My proposal only seeks to change the third criterion, to encompass the several FLs which include some notable and some non-notable entries. Cheers, Rai•me 13:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Thanks Raime, for clarifying that. What had confused me was that Tony had incorporated your comments into his rewritten criteria 1, and eliminated a separate 1a3. Now that he's rewritten that again, and you've weighed in, I feel better about things! : ) MeegsC | Talk 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I've always understood 1a1, 1a2 and 1a3 as being three alternatives; either (1) the list contains items which all have articles, or (2) it is a timeline, or (3) it lists items which aren't individually notable enough to have articles, but when brought together form a significant topic of study. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Tony's done, separating off a rewritten 1a3 as new criterion 1 in the coloured box above, such that a featured list requires at least one non-notable component, would preclude complete lists of notable items, such as species lists or lists of sports team head coaches, ever qualifying for featured status. Agreed, all lists should "comprise a ... set of items that naturally fit together to form a topic", but that's where the sentence should finish. Then 1a3 should be rewritten to allow some or all items to be non-notable. Something like:

A featured list ... has the following attributes.

1. It comprises a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a topic.
2. It covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List) by either:
   • (a) drawing on information from a group of existing articles related by well-defined [entry criteria]; or
   • (b) setting out a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or
   • (c) drawing together items which form a notable topic when considered as a set, but where some or all members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles.
3. ...

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• OK, got it from both of you. But I think there's a problem in:
  • • the notion that a topic itself can lend itself to list format—seemed a bit forced to me, even circular.*setting up a, b and c in opposition to each other; i.e., only one can apply.
  • allocating some of the phrases exclusively among these three either/or points—can't they be mixed and matched? Why are timelines given special mention? (Why are they different from the inclusion of all other items of information?)
  • interpreting just what "a group of existing articles related by well-define entry criteria" means—why not just "a group of related articles"?
  • requiring only items on a timeline to be objectively sourced in their inclusion in the list (what, individual citations for each, demonstrating their appropriateness as list members?); in any case, isn't all information on WP subject to our rules on verification and citation? (Only extra requirements need to be specified here.)
  • the link to WP:Lists, which should surely be to one particular section of that article—can it be included further down in the criteria?
  • the inclusion of "complete", which is already covered by the "comprehensive: point in the subsequent Criterion 2.

It's almost as though the whole of Criterion 1 needs to be swept away and replaced by a simple statement:

TONY (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Perhaps usefulness is an appropriate concept. I'd be concerned if streamlining 1.a resulting in allowing a list of individually-notable items, which currently would have to satisfy 1.a.1 (bringing together existing articles), to come to FLC with swathes of red/blacklinks. A list of sports coaches, say, might be comprehensive, factually accurate, and all the rest, but it isn't much use to the reader if most of the names are redlinked so he/she can't find out more about each one even though all are notable enough to have an article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

"Usefulness" is, I think, too vague by itself. If swathes of redlinks are a potential problem, why not spell this out further down? TONY (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Yes, sorry, I was thinking out loud about why the criteria might have been set out like that in the first place, not advocating keeping usefulness as a specific criterion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• Another problem: "finite" appears to conflict with the notion of "dynamic lists". How can this be? TONY (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Tony, I haven't been around for the last five days, but I just want to say that now you've pointed out the parts you have found to be problematic, it's good that we folk here can now make an attempt to make the FLC process better. You may have felt like I was one of those who engaged in a "personal attack" on you, and if that's so I apologise, though at first that's how it felt for a lot of us! Regards -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Arbitrary break

I've just come across this discussion. Yes the wording could be improved, but Tony's clean sweep version throws away far too much. Most lists are only "useful" on WP if they provide a navigation service to existing articles. And the problem with "finite" has only arisen with this form of words. Colin°^Talk 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, may I be tedious and ask you to enlarge on your observations? Specifically: (1) should "navigational function" be explicitly mentioned as a criterion? Would that solve the issue? (I still think "useful" is just too vague.); and (2) how is the incompatibility of "finite" with "dynamic list" as now dependent on the current wording? TONY (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Tony. I didn't have much time to write much but was concerned to add a quick "hold on" just in case I came back to find the FLC rewritten.

Many moons ago, the 1a criterion said

"Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic (see Wikipedia:List). A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)."

After some discussion it was changed to what we have now. And it is close to text I suggested, so you can all blame me! I've never had a problem with "useful" as an overriding goal. Lists are often not very interesting but they may still be useful. An FA that isn't interesting should fail. Right from the start of FLC, consensus was that on WP a list must serve a navigational purpose, and for that to be actually useful (rather than potentially useful) it should be to a majority of blue-link articles.

Timelines (of which there are only a few) don't fit that model as the individual events tend not to be notable enough in themselves. That didn't stop a few being promoted, probably via WP:IAR. 1a2 is designed to accommodate timelines and the "objectively sourced" rule is to try to discourage OR on the threshold for event inclusion. It is a tricky one and we haven't had many timelines to test whether that rule is necessary or not. The "objectively" refers to the editor being neutral; it doesn't rule out citing a source that subjectively lists events. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

The last criterion was added to accommodate the relatively few lists that reviewers felt were worthy but could never satisfy the original rule, as their entries were not notable enough to deserve articles. To date, the literary bibliographies are the best examples of these. I see there has been some recent debate over problems with such a list where a few of the entries were wikilinked. Perhaps this last criterion can be rephrased to make that OK. But we need to ensure that doesn't defeat 1a1's requirements. At the time of adding 1a3, I was concerned it would open the door to trivia lists (film credits, bus timetables, etc) so added the "significant topic of study" restriction and the "finite, complete and well-defined set". I didn't want this to apply to dynamic lists (where someone could add another entry tomorrow). I think "finite" isn't the best word, since most subjects are finite (and certainly all lists are finite in their implementation) but the scope is unbounded or unmanageably huge. I'm trying to say that the set's size is knowable (and so we can determine if the list is complete), of manageable size (so a complete list would be possible on WP) relatively stable and uncontroversial. I hope you see why some of the restrictions in this criterion would not be helpful if applied to all lists (it would eliminate quite a number). We're trying to say that we allow lists without blue links only in limited circumstances.

You ask if these are the only three forms of usefulness allowed. IMO, no. But they define the properties of three kinds of list that consensus determined are useful to WP. If your list doesn't fit, then it may be opposed. I like to think it still allows some wiggle room for nominators and reviewers to agree that a list is useful and worthy of promotion even if it doesn't exactly fit the mould.

The 1a criteria have been stable for over a year and I'm not aware they cause much of a problem. They are quite important and oft quoted. If rewriting them, we should ensure we neither cause good lists to be removed nor allow non-useful lists to be promoted. Whew! Does that help? Colin°^Talk 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Newly promoted list—is this the typical standard?

List_of_acquisitions_by_Apple_Inc.

• Is it normal to follow the heading by exactly the same words at the opening? It's a really gripping start (frankly, I'd be irritated as a visitor).

Heading: List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

First line: "This is a list of acquisitions by Apple Inc.".

• • Yes, it is. What change would you suggest? --Golbez (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• Second sentence: "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." What does "respective company" mean here? I'm totally confused.
• "listed in US$ because"—Shouldn't it be spelt out properly? The "US" is almost unnecessary (see MOS), and certainly should not be repeated, which it is.
• "Apple has been a computer hardware company from its founding to the early 2000s,.."—Um, when did it stop?
  • When it became a media company with iTunes; that's what caused the final lawsuit with Apple Corps, actually. --Golbez (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• "and hired other companies to build parts computer parts such as central processing units, computer memory, and hard disk drives"—parts computer parts. Good one. Is computer memory a computer part?
  • Actually computer memory most definitely is a computer part, as is a hard disk, a graphics card, a sound card etc. The first "parts", however, can go, and already has. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• None of the three "thens" is necessary.
• "NeXT was a computer hardware company founded by Steve Jobs after being removed from Apple as chairman; he is also the founder of Apple"—Was the computer hardware company removed? Better "after his removal from". The last clause dangles and would be better properly integrated into the first mention of Jobs.
• "as being acquired as"—clumsy rep.
• "The majority" is much vaguer than the info provided in the "country" column—almost misleading—so why bother stating it?
• 13? I count 14 in the list.
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Consideration might have been given to removing the "country" column (just state the two of the ?13 that aren't in the US) and abbreviating the host of zeros; that way, the 2008 inflation-adjusted equivalent could have been accommodated.
• The data at the bottom, starting "Annual revenue" (small r, please—see MOS): shouldn't a year be provided for each?
• The first two refs I sampled: 8 looks like a blogsite (convince me that it's authoritative); 14, the authors are not stated in list.

If this is what is being promoted, I'm appalled. TONY (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Ummm...that list has not been promoted, it is still in the candidacy phase, so why not post those comments to its FAC as an oppose? Collectonian (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Ummm ... from my watchlist: "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎; 01:43 . . (-219) . . Scorpion0422 (Talk | contribs) (Promoted List of acquisitions by Apple Inc., failed Green Wing (series 2))" TONY (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm guessing (hoping) that was a mistype, since the list does not have the minimum number of supports at all, and, as you pointed out, is not FL ready at all. If it is promoted, I'd want to se it sent to review for delisting. Collectonian (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• PS Here's the diff. My, it seems to be a chaotic system. TONY (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

  It is not chaotic Tony, it is the same system as FAC. It was closed with the requisite 3 supports + nom. All of your commenst would have been much more useful on the nompage. As it is, you could ask Scorpion to reverse it before Gimme gets to it. Woody (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

  I thought it was 4 + nom? I think it needs to be reversed, though. (We do need to add something like what was recently added to FAC, with some kind of "closing" comments to indicate its closed, because I couldn't tell and left an oppose :P )Collectonian (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Okay Tony1, here is what you can do: Start commenting in all of these "terrible lists" before they are promoted so that all of your concerns are met. Frankly, your constant complaining about the FL process is becoming both insulting and irritating. Yes, we know you don't think FLs are as good as FAs, but why don't you start helping to improve the lists rather than making examples here?

And as for our "chaotic" system, we follow the exact same promotion proceedures that they do at WP:FAC. Against my better judgement, I have reversed the promotion, so I suggest working with Gary King and trying to help him improve it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Now look here, I was pestered above—rather unpleasantly—to provide an example of poor standards in FLCs, and this was the first one that came up. I've done what you asked. Don't complain, and don't abuse me ("constant bitching"); you've got a nerve. And I'm not here to take orders from the likes of you, thanks very much. You might look inwards, both at yourself and at this process, rather that issuing personal attacks; take note of WP:NPA. TONY (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Well you see, this is the FLC process, so next time leave comments in the FLC. How am I trying to order you around? I merely suggested that you start commenting in the places you are supposed to, rather than complaining here after they get promoted. As well, perhaps you should start practising what you preach, because you have been less than civil here with your comments about our "chaotic system". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I see that someone has pointed out on my talk page, below your hysterical post, that it's impossible to review an article that has already been promoted, and already promoted it was. TONY (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Oh, and is this a new rule you've just come up with about requiring permission to comment on newly promoted lists? TONY (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Did I say that? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I saw this link on Tony's talk page; now why are some of our best editors in a jam with each other? :-) Just to clarify something: ... it is the same system as FAC. It was closed with the requisite 3 supports + nom. It was my understanding (unless this has changed) that there is a fundamental difference between FAC and FLC, in that FLC has no director/delegate position to determine consensus, rather that lists are automatically promoted based on vote count and no outstanding opposes. If I'm wrong about how FLC works, pls disregard, but there is no automatic number that will get any article promoted or archived at FAC. I suggest this is a fundamental flaw at FLC, that allows for vote stacking, and that y'all should appoint a director, as Raul once suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Sandy, I agree. And while it may upset us all, there's nothing invalid in Tony's points. He also categorically states that he doesn't "usually copyedit articles". It often leads to upset at FAC where Tony will appear to drop a bomb on a FAC with his eagle eyes. We mustn't, however, become petulant and cry foul. Similarly, Tony must acknowledge that WP:FAC is woefully short of copyeditors, expectations of volunteers appearing to copyedit at FLC are even lower which is a shame. The inevitable conclusion to that is either standards will be inevitably lower or lists will take longer (perhaps a lot longer) than FACs to meet Tony's (and FAC's) expected standards. That's my take on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I don't mind copyediting FLs, although I'd rather point out the issues at FLC, and let the nominators learn. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Which part do you agree: that FLC needs a director? If that's the case, let's put that in motion. There are several obvious choices, but this needs to garner broad community consensus across several pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I agree with pretty much all you said Sandy, but yes, no reason why FLC shouldn't formalise itself a little more than it currently appears and appoint a director (or two). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

A director would be a good idea. It would help a great deal to ensure quality passes, even if there are a number of supports. It's something I've been silently thinking for a while. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I think most of the issues at List of acquisitions by Apple Inc. have been addressed. Also, I disagree with Rambling Man that it might take longer to meet high copyediting standards here than it would at FAC. FLC has less prose and therefore should not be as difficult to copyedit :) Gary King (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Fair there's less prose but since FAC doesn't have enough copyeditors for their demand, and you, Gary, generate an FLC per day (not necessarily a bad thing!), I think we'll struggle to meet Tony's exacting standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Hey...! I resent that :| I think I've been fairly responsive in all of my FLCs to date, even better than some of my critics :p Plus, a rising tide lifts all boats. Tony has also put me through the paces a few times over at FAC, and it looks like he's passed one of my nominations there just a few hours ago, so I'll take that as a good sign that I'm learning a thing or two about copyediting :) Gary King (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• My standards are being framed as something stratospheric, whereas in reality they're just normal standards of professional writing in English. "Professional standards of writing and formatting" are explicit requirements at FAC, but I really don't see how WP can survive as an authority on the Internet if anything less applies to all of its featured content. It's hard to achieve, and as you'll see from my user page, I like people to correct my prose where it can be improved. But let's face it, there's a lot less prose to check and copy-edit in FLCs than FACs. FAC reviewers have been promoting a culture of collaboration with copy-editors by nominators (better before nomination, but unfortunately all too often during), which has markedly improved standards on that front. Other experts in citations/sourcing have weighed in over the past year to enforce the two relevant criteria, which has transformed the standards.
• We need to get a start on this process. I am an outsider and have no time to participate on a regular basis at FLC, but I'm willing to support the process by assisting in the fixing up of the criteria (that is a high priority) and in the establishment of a directorate. I agree with Rambling Man that two experienced reviewers would be a good start in these positions. Is the next step to advertise this move at VP (policy)? I can frame a short text for the consideration of regular participants here. TONY (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm all for anything that will get the ball rolling. 'Tis better to hold discussions than to have none at all! Gary King (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

So, who's it gonna be ? I've never followed this page, so I may miss someone, but I know that Woody, Scorpion, The Rambling Man and Colin are the names I've most often encountered as being heavily involved and very knowledgeable on the standards. If this goes to Village Pump, I'd support any of them. (I don't know who else may be heavily involved.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm just borrowing a computer here. Viruses have eaten mine away, but I'm getting it back tomorrow which is why I haven't commented yet. I think The Rambling Man, Scorpion and CrzyCheetah would make good directors. I haven't seen much of Woody's and Colin's work, here or elsewhere on Wikipedia so I can't say for those. I'd also like to throw my name into the mix if no-one objects. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Matthew I object :P jkjk, I would support Matthew, Scorpion or CrzyCheetah (I would also support The Rambling Man as long as he doesn't have too much else on his plate). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Hold the phone a sec. I've been avoiding jumping into this whole debate so far, but then I notice that buried under all of the above the topic has changed from low standards to problems with the FL criteria back to low standards and now to an FL Director? That last bit seems like something that should be decided on elsewhere. And, by elsewhere I just mean at least in it's own subheading or something, to facilitate a decent discussion/consensus about the whole thing. I've been trying to follow this whole thing, but that one kind of crept up on me! Drewcifer (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

People are just listing potential nominees. I think the general consensus is that we still plan on holding a more official discussion on that before making any major decisions. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Ok, maybe I just panicked there! I guess my point was that if we really wanted to improve the FLC process (which am 100% behind), we need to be a little bit more organized about it. There's alot of good ideas so far (and kudos to Tony for fighting the good fight), and I wouldn't want those ideas go to waste. Drewcifer (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Drewcifer, problems with the FL criteria are directly responsible for the low standards, apart, of course, from the lack of reviewers. I don't think these two are too irrelevant to be discussed in the same thread. Waltham, The Duke of 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

It's not a matter of relevancy, it's a matter of staying on-topic and actually getting stuff accomplished. If everything from A-Z is discussed in the same thread, nothing will get fully fleshed out because the discussion will be a moving target. Drewcifer (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about the authority of the director

As I haven't had much interaction with Raul or the FAC process (and I would imagine a lot of people at WP:FLC haven't either), could I have a summary of the authority of the director and how the process would work. Like basically, can the director remove a list right away if s/he knows it will fail, can the director promote a list early based on overall consensus that it is quality? How long is the term for being director, 1 year? 2 years? Indefinite based on good behavior? Can the community recall its director if it feels s/he is not doing a good job/there is a better candidate? If we have two directors are they on equal terms, or is one the director and the other the assistant? I would just like to iron the authority of the director out before we nominate one into that position. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 11:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Generally, look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC for an overview, and also consider how WP:FAR runs. The director/delegate determines consensus based on reviewer declarations. In the case of FAC, we almost never remove nominations right away (we must AGF, some articles which start off very badly can come up to speed quickly when they get feedback, and every article deserves a fair shake) unless the nomination comes from someone who has almost never edited the article, the principle editors weren't consulted, or the principle editors agree the article issn't ready (in terms of criteria, isn't comprehensive, etc.). The main differences between the way FAC and FLC currently operate (as far as I can tell) are ... there is no pre-determined length of candidacy at FAC; the director/delegate determines when consensus is reached. That could be three days or (very rarely) two months. And, the director/delegate can account for !vote stacking in cases of canvassing. Also, the director/delegate can determine if a !vote does not reflect the criteria or is an invalid oppose. Raul seems to be comfortable promoting earlier than I do, but since I'm "new on the job", I prefer to let even noms with overwhelming support run for a while; director/delegate discretion. Term and overlapping authority: you're typically choosing people here who simply aren't going to abuse or get in each other's way (see how FAR runs, for example, with two delegates), so those really are concerns that should be accounted for in the !voting here and don't need to be ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Thanks Sandy, I'm glad you realized that question was directed towards you :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 11:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I still think the problem here at FLC is that lists don't get enough votes, period, to determine consensus. Gary King (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Nothing special about that: we have the same problem at FAC, and there are always Supports from reviewers who don't appear to have engaged the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

FAC has more reviewers. After posting a few dozen lists on FLC and a few articles on FAC, that's the feeling I get, anyways. Gary King (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Definitely. I'd prefer more reviewers, to enhance the rigour of the process. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

When you find some extras, pass me a few :-) And then make sure nominators don't dis them and beat them up and never say thank you, so they stop reviewing :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I agree that more reviewers are needed, but how are they to be "recruited"? Sadly, I think this is just wishful thinking :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 12:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Barnstars, rewards and frequent thanks. After that, more barnstars, rewards and frequent thanks. And a post in the Dispatch. And then more barnstars, rewards and frequent thanks. Seriously, reviewing is thankless work: nominators who put up frequent nominations should think about "give some to get some", and go out and encourage reviewers. The ones who actually engage the criteria and don't just throw out a fan Support, that is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

As a frequent nominator at both FAC and FLC, I think I help out by being responsive to reviews. I almost always respond within 12 hours, max. Gary King (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I think the people who are there already will have noticed and appreciated and remembered that, but I'm not sure it initially brings people to the process (how are they supposed to notice). It probably helps bring frequent and perhaps infrequent reviewers back, as they know that their comments will be addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I like to think I'm doing a little good in this world... :) Gary King (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm not convinved by that, Sandy. I would think it only serves to garner supports for the barnstar-giver's next nomination. Saying that though, I've never received one, so I don't know how I'd act if I did! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7) (Note to readers: don't go sending me a bunch, thanks!)

I think everyone likes to be thanked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Is that to my comment about garnering future supports or my request to not send me some? Of course I like to be thanked, too, I just meant that no-one has to feel sorry for me and start sending me some. And because people like to be thanked, some people might feel almost compelled to come back and support a further nomination, especially if they come from a WikiProject and are not frequent participants in the review process. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dweller's idea

<- It would be worth considering if the FLC Directors could encourage participation in 'needy' debates. As they'd be neutral to the success/failure of the nom, I guess they wouldn't fall foul of WP:CANVASS. Not sure if this would work, but worth pondering if/when this gets off the ground. I think all of the FAC/FLC regulars know who we could drop a line to, and we could even establish a volunteer list where people offer their services in this manner. If enough signed up and the Directors were careful to rotate... well, I think there's a germ of a workable idea. (NB I'd sign up as a volunteer if this were implemented. And if FAC copied the idea, I'd sign up for that one too, hint hint Sandy, lol) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Good idea. One of my main concerns with the process here has always been from irregular participants from WikiProjects. I think that would have to be taken into consideration to avoid WP:COI issues, which would land us back in the postition we've found ourselves this week. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start on a sign-up page at Wikipedia:Featured List review volunteers. If it's deemed a bad idea, it can be binned. --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When I look at the statement on that page, it implies that those people can be contacted if a list I nominated is about to fail because of lack of reviews. Is that the case? Gary King (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I'm thinking (and bear with me, this is a work in progress) that volunteers would be happy to be called on for reviews that are either stifled by lack of participation (as you suggest) but also where consensus is difficult to ascertain (say where there's opposes where the grounds for opposition are contested). Sorry to be vague - I think the role of the group will probably develop. --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The yellow urgent box should handle unloved nominations. I'm thinking more of cases where there's dispute that needs more opinions. Often the nominator and one reviewer can get locked in disagreement and if nobody else joins, it is a stalemate. Or a list with lots of fan support. Or suspected canvassing. So, I agree with Dweller. Colin°^Talk 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<-I've started adding some explanatory gloss. Happy for people to help develop this idea, as well as sign up. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the FAC and FAR/C "urgents" templates may be a good way of advertising the process and opportunities it provides for new reviewers. I put these In terms of persuading WPians into the fray, the idea of specialising in one or more criteria/aspects can calm their fears that the job might be beyond their skill-base. FAC, for example, has those who specialise in citations, in prose, in MOS, and in non-free content (sadly lacking at the moment in the last, though). Here, we're helped by the fact that the content of prose is more manageable; FAs are a nightmare of volume in that respect. On the matter of the relationship between the directors, it seems to work very smoothly at both FAC and FAR/C. I suppose there's a bit of communication between them where there's a need to firm up the allocation of nominations. TONY (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

'Review now' table on WP:FLC

Just a minor thing that I'd like some thoughts on regarding layout. For the 'review now' box (the one that lists the lists that still need a consensus to be promoted), could we shrink it down so it doesn't use up as much space vertically? Again, this is a very minor issue, but it just doesn't look very aesthetically pleasing. Someone suggested doing it like Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items before but that was quickly shot down; I'm thinking maybe just break it up into two columns, so it would be half the size it is now?

It'd look something like this: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/articles needing reviews. In my opinion, it looks better because it is easier to read. Generally speaking, I don't think centered text with more than a few lines is easy to read. Gary King (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that we usually (or at least shouldn't) have this many lists in the table. It's usually not as bad as it is now. I wouldn't be opposed to any change though, whatever makes it look better. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's usually at least five there, which already looks bad if they are of different lengths. Gary King (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gary, this is good, but a key sentence there raises issues that I think need to be discussed in relation to whether the quota of declarations (a better word than "votes") is to be retained:

The following lists were nominated more than ten days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or because they have garnered insufficient support votes.

You might consider this, which is a straight borrowing from the FAC instructions:

The following lists were nominated more than ten days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

The directors might be thankful for this change ... TONY (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that no objections have been raised so far, so I might just go ahead and do it. If someone does not like it, feel free to revert it. As a web usability semi-expert, though (I'm a web developer by day, Wikipedian by night), I think that what I have proposed is a good update. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)