Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Fair Use images

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images about the permitted level of usage of Fair Use images in Featured Lists. Your input would be welcomed. 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The debate continues. At least one FL List of South Park episodes has had its images removed. —Moondyne 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure boxes

In order to allow closing editors to explain their actions in a more eloquent manner than the edit summary allows, I'd like to propose that closed nominations are "boxed up", in the same way that Featured Articles nominations are. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log for examples). This is probably more important in the case of failed nominations, especially when the closing editor has to make a potentially controversial descisions. For an example, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Wiltshire. It uses User:Tompw/sandbox12, with a single (unnamed) parameter for the closing editor's comments.

What do people think? Tompw (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In view of the lack of objections, I shall go ahead with this. It will be easy enough to remove if people dislike it. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Tom, meant to comment earlier and forgot about it. I find your "10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose" comments in the edit summary to be useful. They give an idea of the number of comments and any controversy. However, if that is all you say on the closing comments, we're going to get people thinking it is a vote. The FA log doesn't actually say anything other than that it was promoted (or not). AfD closures tend to include some justification and suggestions. Colin°Talk 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A crisis in quality

We all like the Simpsons and watching the NBA and NFL. That stuff's fun, and it's cool the way people have listed some important stuff about them. 2003 NBA Draft was an important one, seeing LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony rise. Now I've been trying to pull together a List of the writings of William Monahan but some seem to think it's not worthy of a list. It's a depthy subject about a great raw talent who was well known in New York. Anyways, the problem is a bunch of kids at AfD want to delete the list before it's even completed. Frankly, I find it frightening. If you do too please vote to Keep the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan.-BillDeanCarter 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Is there a procedure for withdrawn noms? A list I generated from a script was nominated, and I've persuaded the nominator that it is a bad idea and should be withdrawn, but I don't see a procedure for this. Do we just lump them in with failed noms? Yomanganitalk 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

This article has been on FLC for over a month now, thanks entirely to Shudda's opposition and refusal to accept the notability of inducters; this in comparison to eight (8) support votes. Clearly something has to be done to wrap this up, and I don't think the appropriate thing to do is close it because of one minority opposition vote, but it also doesn't seem right to promote it with any outstanding opposes. Thoughts? --MarcK 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if it's just one opposition who won't buckle then we should promote it, especially if it's 8-1. Kinda obvious promotion to me actually. Wizardman 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another list question

(crossposting from WP:VPA)

There is somewhat of a discussion on FLC about this, and I wanted to ask here. What kind of picture style to folks like in lists of people? There's three different kinds:

  1. No pictures at all. (List of Governors of Georgia)
  2. Pictures along the side of notable or picture-available people. (List of Governors of Alabama, List of Governors of Kentucky)
  3. Pictures for every entry. (List of Governors of Louisiana, List of Governors of California).

Personally, I greatly prefer option #2; I feel that having pictures in the table bloats it horribly. Also, there's the situation, especially on Alabama, where over half the people don't have good free images available; that's why, for example, I don't have a picture of George Wallace there. When I had the pictures in the table itself, it was full of "placeholder" images, which didn't add any value to the table whatsoever. I can see an exception for national office holders, since 1) it tends to be easier to get pictures of those, and 2) they're far more recognizable than governors or lesser offices. But I wanted to see where other folks stood on this. (and FYI, the Georgia article only has no pictures because they haven't been added yet, but I wanted to portray that option as well) --Golbez 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I prefer option 3. For my money, a complete list (especially WP's best) has a full complement of corresponding images. --maclean 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Too many placeholders can look ugly. If you can find an image for each one, and the list is relatively small, then a picture for every entry can look good. But for some long lists, it makes the page take ages to load and may distract from the purpose, which is to tabulate the information and offer links to the articles. Such long picture-lists would be better off as galleries over on Commons, which could be linked to from the list. Colin°Talk 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured List Review?

Featured Articles have a Featured Article Review; do we have something similar for Lists? Or does Featured List Removal kind of deal with that? I ask because I don't think List of Governors of Delaware presently stands up as a featured list (it was promoted over a year ago), but I don't necessarily want to remove it; I want to see if others agree, and if so, I'll spruce it up. But if no one else agrees, who am I to tamper with a featured list? --Golbez 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FLRC is the same as WP:FAR. There is definitely a lot of trivial information in that Delaware list (i.e. Occupation, county). I don't think it's necessary to list it in the WP:FLRC, though. If you know a way to improve it, go ahead.--Crzycheetah 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
People "tamper with" featured material all the time. There's no extra protection for featured stuff over non-featured other than a degree of respect. So be bold. If you plan radical changes, post a message on the list's talk page first, and consider asking any key editors directly. It is better for the list to be spruced up than to go through a review, unless you feel the list is seriously broken. Colin°Talk 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tables with opinions

I've been adding tables to some, eventually all, of the nominations. I'm thinking it will help a. people get an idea of the discussion at a glance and b. focus reviewers on lists that have had fewer reviews. If people don't like it, this can obviously be halted. Geraldk 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that. It's very helpful. You need to make a template for that.--Crzycheetah 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's definately useful, particulaly when there are lot of comments and people changing their vote. Good move. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I already passed it along to WP:FAC. They are watching us in fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
However, it reduces the discussion into a 'with us' or 'against us' scenario. --maclean 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's one reason why they were switched from saying "vote" to "opinion". I don't really think they'll set up an adversarial debate process any more than the current process does. It's just a summary of current information, after all. Either way, we get people thinking it's decided by a vote rather than by consensus. Geraldk 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to these tables. FLC is about discussion and consensus and not who gets the most support votes. And it would drive the nominator to ignore any comment or remark about the list as long as it gets enough support to pass. CG 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How is the latter not true of the current system? The only difference is that the opinions expressed are summarized in an easily readable format. My big concern right now is that we aren't getting enough comments to promote a lot of deserving lists, and part of that is that it's hard for reviewers to tell which have a lot of comments and which have a few. Geraldk 12:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, FLC is more a vote than more other discussion areas, so for this case I don't see a problem. I mean the numbers are pretty cut and dry, and of course the nominators would still ahve to respond to the comments and opposers. Wizardman 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that opinion really worries me, Wizardman. It worries me more that you sometimes close nominations. If you do believe this is a vote, then I strongly advise you to stop closing nominations. Colin°Talk 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Granted, I haven't closed a nom in months, and I don't mean that it's of course a 100% vote; if it was then there wouldn't be the current problems being cited. Plus, I say it's more a vote solely because this is the only area where there are arbitrary numbers in place for promotion. Not saying whether o not I agree, just pointing it out. Wizardman 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Update: I've just edited Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates. Two responses were missing from the table, and the responses are listed in a different order to the text (which makes it harder to check). This is proving to be a maintenance hassle. In addition, if responses are missing, then it useless as a quick check to see which noms are lacking support. Also, none of the latest noms are using it. Colin°Talk 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin's thoughts

I've been researching the closing status of the FLs to gauge the level of support/oppose that FL noms get. It is very rare for an FL to be promoted with any outstanding oppose. This is quite different to FA. However, the level of participation here is so low that many lists only just get enough support to pass the threshold. Generally, if an oppose is lodged, the list will also fail to attract much support. Recent failures are 3:2, 8:4, 1:2, 0:1, 3:2, 0:1, 1:0, 4:1, 3:0, 2:0, 1:4, 0:2. This year, I can find only three noms that got promoted while they had an outstanding oppose:

Now, I don't think those promotions were so wrong that they need reviewed. Closing comments would have helped. Why after 20/32 days was the outstanding oppose not dealt with and yet was disregarded? There have been suggestions in the past that we somehow highlight noms that have gone into extra time. Perhaps we should reconsider this, along with a statement to say why this nom needs more comments. For example:

  • Will fail due to lack of support.
  • Objection disputed by nominator. (i.e. other reviewers are required in order to gauge consensus as to whether it is a valid objection).
  • Objecting being worked on; please keep watching.

I've been reading m:Polls are evil and think is relevant both to these summary tables and our thoughts on handling FLC in general. Lets take each of the subheadings:

Polling discourages consensus
Sometimes reviewers raise objections that they later retract or agree could have been dealt with in a different way from how they suggested. This is why it is so important to get other reviewers on an nom that has an object. Sadly, that often doesn't happen. Lack of interaction between reviewers' comments weakens the process. We end up with a list of "Support. Brilliant" along side an object. Does the object have consensus?
Polling encourages false dichotomy
Support and oppose are not the only two options. Often a reviewer will see a list that is nearly-there but requires just a few more changes. If small, this could be handled by a conditional support. Often, at an early stage in the nomination, reviewers might just comment, making it clear what needs to be done to get their support. This can be seen as less confrontational than an up-front oppose.
Polling encourages groupthink
This is probably the worst aspect of these summary tables. It is really hard not to be influenced by the current "voting" state. This can influence not only your own recommendation but also your decision to abstain from a nomination. That could be quite unfair if you read the nom and (a) the support is all fan-based or (b) the objects are unfair.
Polling isn't fair, either
Perhaps we've got into the habit of thinking you need 4 support and 0 oppose? The concern that fans can bring about an undeserved promotion is present at FA and FL. I think significant contributors should abstain from supporting (though they may comment or even oppose). I'd be uncomfortable promoting a 4-sup list where two of those were main contributors.
Polls are misleading and encourage confusion
I've seen lists that have received lots of good advice on FLC only to have the nominator go off in a huff because they failed. Worse, if it appears they "won the vote". Sometimes, FLC is a place where editors can learn, improve and gauge the consensus on-wiki for certain guidelines/styles. This is one reason I object to the WP:SOFIXIT attitude of some nominators at FLC; as if they want us to wave a magic wand over their list.

OK, this is in danger of becoming an essay. I've decided that I'm opposed to these summary tables. I certainly don't want the closing editors to use them (they could very well be out-of-step anyway). We do need to find ways to encourage more reviewers, more discussion between reviewers, and to deal with out-of-time nominations. I don't think this is the solution. Having said that, I support Geraldk's actions: we do have to try new things to see if they work/like them. Colin°Talk 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments after Colin

(Started a new section to make keep things clear). It appears to me there are several different issues that have been raised here. Having read all of the above, I think that tables encourage the FLC process to be treated as a vote, rather than a determination on consensus. One of the advantages of *not* having table is that the closing editor has to read through the comments in order to determine whther or promote. Seperately, I do think that those who contributed significantly to the article should not have their support votes counted. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind, or are still in two minds? If the former, would it help to strike your earlier supportive comment? Colin°Talk 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in two minds still. I like that clarity they bring, but don't like the fact it could encourage closing editors to treat this purely as a vote. However, my overall feeling is that the latter outweighs the former, and they should go. (That said, my thanks go to Geraldk for trying to make the process easier, and being [[WP:BOLD]). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the "Supporting and objecting" guidelines should specifically request:
Those editors who have contributed significantly to the article should refrain from "supporting"; although other comments, including "oppose", are valid. The nomination implicitly counts towards the supporting views.
Does FAC have a guideline on this? Colin°Talk 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:FAC states for supporters If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. WP:GAN requires that the article reviewers cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it. In the interests of transparancy, editors should mention if they have made a significant contribution. In order to bring the FL process into line with FA (and GA), I propose that the first point in the "Supporting and objecting" section on this page be amended to read:

If you support a nomination, write "Support" followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.

(Bold being the new text). Any thoughts/comments/objections? Tompw (talk) (review) 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference with FA is that the "indication" is enough to help Raul with his decisions when closing. With GA, I believe the reviewer closes his own review. On FL, anyone can close and they might not be aware that there is a feeling (consensus?) that support from significant contributors counts for less. With a threshold of only 3-non-nominator supports, I don't think we can accept "fan" support as counting towards the threshold test. However, fans are welcome to extol the virtues of their list, which might influence the other reviewers and the closing editor. Nothing wrong with that. Colin°Talk 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I just spent time adding and updating summary boxes because I like them and last time I looked here it looked like almost everyone else did. It seems the debate has gone in a different direction. I still support the summary tables. I do think 80% support should pass. After reading the above, I still like the summary boxes. However, I will not add any more unless there is some consensus to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To defend those two I promoted, the 2003 NBA Draft oppose was in fact dealt with if you look at the article, hence the promotion there. The "vote" simply wasn't changed. My other one's a lot harder to defend since I was still new at consensus determining at that time. It was a close call, and I'd probably be reluctant to pass it if I had to redo that. Granted, an FLC should NEVER be up a month. If it is and the oppose hasn't been dealt with to anyone's satisfaction then it should probably have failed. (and if you want to submit it to FLRC if you don't feel it's fl status, then do so. Wizardman 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I did say that I didn't think the promotions required review. Yes, I suppose you could think of the minimum-threshold as similar to a "vote", though there may be occasions when 4 isn't enough. I agree, that nom shouldn't have been up for that long. We (collectively, since there's no director) should have chased up the opposers and nominator to update their positions. Colin°Talk 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback wanted at peer review

I just opened a peer review for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A here. I want to use the feedback gained from that and the subsequent FLC to improve all the other LGB people lists to the same standard, so I would be very much appreciative if some of the regulars here who know what an FLC should look like would comment. Thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Different standards

I'm not bitter, but I am confused. Some statements made on the recent FLC for List of Governors of Alabama:

  • "Oppose: Lack of images"
  • "The list still needs refs for the "Higher offices held" section."

The article failed on the strength of these two oppositions. However, I direct you to List of Governors of Kentucky, which has only slightly more images than the Alabama list, and has the same supposed lack of references for the higher offices section. Should I simply renominate this? Kentucky was promoted by a different person as failed Alabama, so maybe they have different ways of handling this? And no, these are not valid objections to Kentucky now, since the FL criteria state they should have been brought up when it was here - and both were on FLC at the same time.

So, someone please clear up my confusion. Was the Alabama list wrongly failed, or was the Kentucky list wrongly promoted? Were the votes merely counted, rather than the substance examined? --Golbez 08:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Each list seemed to attract a different set of reviewers. One got lucky and one got unlucky. I don't think the "lack of images" oppose is valid (perhaps it was in the past, but there seem to be enough images now). If you think an oppose isn't valid or has been resolved, indicate this by responding on the page to help the closing editor (don't strike out or tick someone's comments—that's for them to do). Refs are a serious issue and can't be ignored. A list must be self-supporting; it can't rely on the linked articles for support (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). If there is an overall reference that can support the whole table, then individual citations are not required in that circumstance. They tend to be necessary for dynamic lists. If the "Higher offices held" section is still unreferenced (I haven't checked) then that should be addressed for both lists.
BTW: the letter-based footnotes don't work on these lists. They don't jump to the footnote on Firefox (though the back-link works). On IE they do scroll down but because you haven't labelled the ref, you can't tell which is a or b or c, etc. The usage of letters and numbers is the opposite way round to most WP articles (i.e. it is common to use letters for notes and numbers for sources). I suggest you attempt to resolve these issues and resubmit for FLC. Colin°Talk 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
They work for me... and the refs *are* labelled. --Golbez 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who closed the Alabama nomination. I disregarded the "lack of images" objection, but the references issue was hard to disregard. There has to be a note that indicates what external source has been used to find the info. It was missing, plus I personally didn't like the lead section (I mentioned this in one of the other governor lists), that's why I didn't support this nomination. By the way, the Kentucky list needs that same note, too. --Crzycheetah 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

Could someone add a new sentence to step #4 in the Nomination procedure? When one (who's trying to resubmit) follows step #5, he/she doesn't change the links of the first nomination. The problem is that the Failed log shows the latest nomination (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations) which may have been promoted already and not the one that was failed (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1). Step #4 needs to be updated and it needs to state to follow "what links here" and add "/archive1" where necesary. --Crzycheetah 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing procedure

Was thinking that, when time extensions are given due to lack of support, we should define a definite process. Specifically, I think the last bit under the Supporting and Objecting header should read: "In these cases the nominated list will receive additional time to attract support. This additional time will not exceed ten days." I know it will lengthen things to have a list on the page for twenty days, but I think we've been failing an unacceptable number of lists due to lack of support rather than outright objection. Thought? Geraldk 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also added a message box to direct reviewers to nominations in need. Thought for that are welcome as well. Geraldk 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to close an FLC?

The List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A FLC's ten days are almost up. May I, the nominator, promote, or would someone else kindly mind doing so? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the ten days aren't up until about 23:00 tomorrow. The discussion should be kept open until then. Geraldk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good at writing, suck at counting. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More opinions BADLY needed at WP:FLRC

Because the focus of it is our very definition of "list", there is a strong need for more opinions at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea.Right now it's basically me vs. the article's staunchly opposed editors, and it's getting tedious something that has nothing to do with the rest on FLC... Circeus 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Images in discography articles

I noticed that in discography articles (or at least the ones nominated at FLC), album and single images are removed from the page. Could someone explain me the reason? Does putting these kind of images qualifies as a major copyright violation? Aren't they considered as fair use regarding that the author of these pictures is easily identifiable and their use is for encyclopedic value (again, i know very little about these issues). I appreciate if someone would clarify. Thank you. CG 09:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use image have been considered inappropriate for lists for several months now, and it's in the end just far too much work to argue with the Fair Use Warriors over this. See also the massive debate over screenshots in episode lists (though I'm serious considering that reintroduction is possible for lists where individual articles don't exists). Circeus 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting a featured list

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, a featured list, has become very long, and as such can be difficult to load and edit. In my opinion, a split of some sort is in order; given that the most complete (and therefore longest) section is #Athletics due to excellent sports records, a split to List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes sounds reasonable. If I were to perform such a split, how would I manage the corresponding lists' "featured" status? I was thinking that the old list (of GT alumni) would go through Featured List Review and the new (athletes) list would go through FLC. Any thoughts? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't see why the "old list" would need to go through Featured List Removal, as there aren't really any problems with it- but I figure a Peer Review wouldn't hurt. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting for List of Crowded House awards

I've been monitoring this list/article for a couple of weeks now. Is there a reason it's not being either promoted, failed or commented? I want to get this article to FL, but if I don't get any feedback, I can't really do that. Can I get some more comments, support/opposition (hopefully not) and some reasoning behind these votes?

Thanks. --lincalinca 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2)

The FLC for the above article has been sitting at the bottom of the list with five support votes and no oppose votes for nearly a day now. Can anyone close it, seeing as it has been on this page for fifteen days, and all concerns have been addressed? Perhaps setting a committee of people to determine consensus on FLCs and to close them would be a beneficial thing for this page, and help in clearing potential backlogs. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. My first closure, incidentally - I hope I've done everything correctly, but please will someone tell me if I didn't, or if I don't have the status required to close. BencherliteTalk 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason I hadn't closed it is because there was still an active discussion going on. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, my apologies if I acted inappropriately, but that's not how it appeared (or appears) to me. The last three comments from editors other than the nominator, spread over five days, were all supports; there was no further comment by Golbez in reply to the nominator's reply to his comment; and nobody else thereafter picked up Golbez's issue as a concern. I saw no outstanding issues and nothing to hinder promotion, given that there were 4 non-nominator supports and no opposes. Or am I missing something? BencherliteTalk 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's okay, I last did my promotion rounds 4 days ago and I haven't had time to do any promotions since, so that's why I missed it. -- Scorpion0422 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh good. I only closed it because (a) the nominator asked for someone to close it and (b) it looked a simple enough promotion decision for my first close! BencherliteTalk 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the closure. Just remember to change the status of the article to FA-class on any relevant WikiProject tags that are on the talk page. Again, thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't on the checklist of things to do, so I didn't (and nor did the person who closed a FLC I nominated a while ago), but it's a good idea, I agree. BencherliteTalk 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review before nomination

Hi, please take a look at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Harry_Potter_in_translation and add your two cents: should the list in question be split away from the article or left as is? --woggly 09:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Breeders discography

Just to note that The Breeders discography has had four supports over ten days. The FLC is here. CloudNine 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Fate/stay night episodes

Just placing this out there - List of Fate/stay night episodes has been sitting for two additional days with four supports. See here. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted. Toohool 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New FL on the Main Page proposal

We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1, 2007, voting starting December 1, 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1, 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking for comments on FLC and FAC

Is it okay to go to editors talk pages and ask them to comment, support or oppose nominations for FLs and FA if they have edited the page being nominated? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CANVAS. You have to keep any notice neutral so you certainly mustn't ask people to support/oppose anything. On FAC, editors who have "been a significant contributor to the article" are expected to declare this if they support. FLC is a bit less formal but IMO, it is bad form to support something you were significantly involved in creating. The nominator is the obvious exception to this and would naturally be expected to support their own work. If other involved-editors wish to Comment, that's fine. You may find such editors have the article in their watchlists and will spot the FLC notice going up on the talk page. Colin°Talk 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Overtime" box

I think that this has become a pretty essential part of the page, but I think it is time we turn it into a template subpage, such as the backlog templates (and subpages) used on pages such as WP:PR and WP:GAR. I also think that we should add "Update the overtime box" as a step to take when closing a nomination, as it seems to be often overlooked. Rai-me 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are other pages to use the template on, (as is the case with e.g. the generic {{backlog}} template, or {{DYK-Refresh}}, used on several DYK-related pages), having a template is pointless, and makes updating said template morecomplicated than updating the page itself. Circeus 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/backlog template is used on only one page, and most find that it makes the backlog easier to update, as one only has to click on an "update" link. And for the instructions for closing a nomination, an easy link to the template would be provided that would make updating very easy, perhaps even less time consuming than updating the current template is. Rai-me 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. It's actually a subpage, not a template.
  2. It is neither transcluded, nor linked to by any page (or I'm missing something obvious. It's really weird).
  3. You can have update links with sections quite easily.
Circeus 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it is a subpage,my mistake. FLC's hypothetical new backlog notice could also be a subpage. The GAR subpage is usually linked, but has been very recently removed, as there is not currently a backlog on the page. It will likely be in back in use very soon. And I know that sections can be easily linked, but subpages/templates seem to be common with other projects with backlogs, so why not here? Adding some sort of link to a subpage or a template would be faster than the current method of updating the overtime box, which does not provide a link to a section. However, I would not be opposed to leaving the overtime box as is, as long as an easy link to the specific section is provided in the nomination procedure. Rai-me 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There are ways to update the box and remove a transcluded FLC in the same edit. {{FA number}} is updated directly from Wikipedia:Featured articles, so updating the count there affects the template as well. We could have something like that for the overtime box. Spebi 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do "Content navigation" listings belong here?

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#Other "content navigation" pages. Please comment over there. Colin°Talk 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) OK. The Portal guys weren't interested.

I'd like some discussion please because I'm really struggling to see how a contents page (useful though it may be) could be Featured along with encyclopaedic lists and articles. The big distinction I see is that pages like List of basic geography topics are focussed helping users find and browse Wikipedia articles. They don't contain any substantial non-obvious information on their own (they'd need references if they did). They generally don't contain much of a lead, which is fine. The criteria for entry on such lists is vague and wide. Clearly, not all Geography articles can fit on one page so someone has to make a subjective choice. The grouping into section headings is also subject to subjective and aesthetic choice. I don't have a problem with that but it isn't how normal articles and lists are made. Essentially, this is a more useful layout than the category system can provide but doesn't add anything beyond selection and organisation.

I don't mean to disparage the work The Transhumanist has done on such topic pages. I just think they are a different beast and don't wish to see the two muddled up. If editors do want to see such pages on FL, then can we define some clear adjustments to the FL criteria. Otherwise we're going to see an unsourced List of basic Simpsons topics pop up and expect to get featured. Colin°Talk 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics‎ -- closure

The following comments were made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics‎ after it was closed. I'ved moved them here since the discussion on that page has closed. Colin°Talk 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a decision to be made from someone other than a participant in the discussion. It seems inappropriate for someone who voted in the discussion to close it. Five supporters vs. two opposers appears to be a pretty clear consensus of support. Since a participant in the discussion closed the discussion, on the minority side to boot, it appears that conflict of interest has entered into it. The Transhumanist 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you would have had to wait over a week otherwise. It's not really a conflict of interest. You rarely see FA or FLCs pass when more than one opposer doesn't feel that their concerns have been addressed. I've seen some that were 8-1 in favour that failed. -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FL class

I have gotten list class added to the quality log. I am trying to get FL class added here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a place for Peer Reviews

I've recently read a few comments from users that give me the impression that they are treating this place more as a peer review than anything. Should it be noted somewhere on the page that one should not nominate a list solely for feedback, or is it necessary? -- Scorpion0422 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a degree of overlap to an extent and that is one of the problems with the current setup. I think some people (myself included) leave comments like: Any comments/improvements would be welcome, simply to show that we are open-minded and not averse to constructive criticism. We do have the You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review. in the instructions, we could rephrase it to some more forceful language but would anyone take any notice? Woodym555 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Many people, however, do treat an attempt to acquire featured status, whether it is at WP:FAC, WP:FLC, or other places, as more effective than a peer review simply because more people are present at the aforementioned pages than at WP:PR. Furthermore, the prospect of being able to resolve all the problems means an article or list of featured status, which is an enticing goal. If nominations aren't up to par, then they fail; if they are, they pass. I think it's fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to use any names, but I recently saw a conversation where two users agreed that a list would never pass an FLC, but one suggested submitting it anyway just for the review. That seems kind of like abusing the process, because we have a hard enough time getting 3 or 4 votes in FLCs as it is without users who know their lists won't pass clogging up the process with nominations of subpar lists. -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should introduce a speedy close system? If an FLC has 3 or 4 oppose votes within 5 days, then it can be speedily closed, that way the obvious fail noms will be off of the page quicker. -- Scorpion0422 —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree but only with 3 or 4 aggregate votes. I would worry that some people oppose for different problems. Some would oppose if a wikilink was out of place instead of Commenting. It could be open to abuse that way. Woodym555 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we wouldn't have to make the specifics of the policy public, we could just say that "articles with significant opposition may be closed early" or something like that. I think Raul has some kind of speedy closure policy for FAs, but it's difficult to tell what his limit is because he usually only closes articles once a week. While we're on the topic of speedy closures, I don't think we should have a speedy promotion system. I've seen FAs with plenty of support passed after a few days, but I disagree with speedy promotes because you never know who will show up and oppose and when they will do it. -- Scorpion0422 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the speedy failure. A loose system whereby if a list is obviously going to fail then it should be speedy failed. A forced withdrawal if you will. I also agree that speedy promotions are not productive. I think a defined time limit works well. I will freely admit that i have supported an article and then things have been brought up by other editors that need fixing. Woodym555 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be fine. Lists that have existing problems that would be painfully difficult to surmount should simply be failed. A prime example of this is Religions by country, which has a bucketload of problems at its nomination, and with the nominator making no effort to meet any of the complaints raised, I highly doubt it will be able to resolve all the issues in ten days. This system would allow for this nomination to be closed and open up space. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we not WP:SNOW fail that. It won't pass, it has too many problems. Although I do remember the FLC of Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War had a rough ride, but two editors put in a lot of hard work, turning it round. Woodym555 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
But if a list does get a lot of early trouble, then there is no reason why it couldn't be renominated, right? -- Scorpion0422 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true. In any case, so long as the nominator is making a genuine effort to meet all of the concerns, or discussion is going on about the concerns (assuming that the concerns can be resolved without a huge effort), then the nomination can remain open. Lists that have pile-on opposes, or cases where the nominator is clearly not making any effort to improve the article, can be closed. And yeah, they can simply renominate them after improvements are made. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me started on Peer Review. Half the articles don't get any feedback whatsoever, except for an automated review which is not very helpful. If someone is willing to offer construvtive criticism, be it here or somewhere else, let them. Whatever improves the encyclopedia. Drewcifer 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So are we in agreement that a Speedy close policy will be implemented in cases where:

  • A nom has been open more than 2 days and has 3 oppose votes and the nominator hasn't replied at all
  • A nom has been open more than 5 days and has 4 oppose votes and the nominator doesn't appear to be even trying to address concenrs.

And this would be implemented as of now, so the current lists that would meet those guidelines wouldn't count, or else the nominators would say we were conspiring against them or something. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That could work. We should only really speedy close when WP:SNOW applies, and these requirements show that. Also, this set of requirements does not alienate those editors who make herculean efforts to fix articles and meet all suggestions, which is good. I would say implement them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added "Articles that have gained significant opposition and the nominator has made few attempts to address these concerns may be closed early." at the end of the "Supporting and objecting" section. This goes into effect as of now, so any articles nominated AFTER today will be subject to it, but the any current noms are safe. -- Scorpion0422 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly question

Stupid question, but why is every list article nowadays called "List of ___"? A little self-referntial and a bit obvious don't you think? ie List of 50 Cent awards, List of films that received the Golden Film, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (Chapter Black Saga), etc. What's wrong with 50 Cent awards, Films that received the Golden Film, or YuYu Hakusho episodes (Chapter Black Saga)? No other type of article does this. "Biography of 50 Cent" "Category of films that received the Golden Film" etc. Just wondering. Drewcifer 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just emphasizes that they're a list. The best example I can find for this is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Metal Gear Solid characters, two articles of featured quality (FA and FL respectively) that approach the subject material in a different manner. The first treats the characters as a whole in an article, commenting on character design, development, merchandise, and critical reception. The second treats the characters in a list format, including out-of-universe information along with the characters. It just makes it clear to the reader whether the article is a list or not. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see that much of a difference between the two. The only difference between them is the "Cast creation and influences" section in Final Fantasy article. But all that is besides the point: I realize that saying "List of.." emphasizes the fact that they it is a list, but why should that be a concern in the article's title? That's more a meta-wiki thing, and we try and avoid self-referencing whenever possible, right? Drewcifer 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The presence of (rather large and extensive) development and reception sections in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII sets it apart from List of Metal Gear Solid characters, emphasizing the fact that it's far more an article than it is a list. Anyhow, my point in using those two was that the Final Fantasy character article talked about the characters in general (hence the development and receptions sections), while the Metal Gear Solid character list simply listed the characters. Not including "List of..." implies that the article talks about the subject as a whole (in a significant fashion, indicating that the article is not a list) rather than a collected list of items. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Red links in FLs

Wondering if there can be redlinks in FLs. The one I am working on has red links...List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. Miranda 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If they don't have a page, then are they really notable enough for inclusion in such a list? But, in answer to your question, a page that is mostly redlinks is usually excuseable under criterion 1a3 if it is part of a topic of significant study. However, in this case, a page where less than half are red links, it should be okay, for example, see List of Survivor contestants where only about 60% of the people listed have their own pages. -- Scorpion0422 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles have redlinks, because I haven't created them, yet. Miranda 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Record number of promotions

This has been a record month here at WP:FLC as we had 65 promotions, shattering the previous record of 46 set in January 2008. We also had a the lowest numner of failures since June 2007 - 9 and almost half of those were withdrawls. This was an exceptionally good month as we had more than 40 active FLCs for quite some time, so let's keep up the good work and try to break that record. -- Scorpion0422 10:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)

Hurrah!! WP:FLC pwns Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)
Amen to that TRM! – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzo fan2007-Public (talk • contribs)
I just found this discussion. I'm hoping I helped to contribute to this record :) Gary King (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Credit

Personally, I think there should be a template to recognize the people who nominated/worked on the list after this list is promoted. There is one for featured pictures, so I don't see why note here. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)

Do you mean something like this?--Crzycheetah 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)
Not exactly. Something like this - Milks F'avorite Cookie 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)
I don't think that would work for FLC's as they are a collaborative effort. FPs on the other hand are solely the work of an individual. It is much harder to distinguish main contributors for FLs and FAs as many people can offer input, each as valuable as the other. You can put {{User Featured Lists}} or {{User Featured List}} on your user page. Woody (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)

Carolina Hurricanes seasons

I put Carolina Hurricanes seasons to WP:FLC. There has been some lively debate and currently the list stands at 3 support and 2 oppose. I am curious what happens now? It doesn't seem the opposition will drop/change their vote. Thanks, PGPirate 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Well, it still has 6 days left, so we'll see when it gets to ten days, but both of the opposers will likely not be ignored as they both seem to have good cases. -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I guess we will wait. Thats why I didn't know what would happen, since both sides have valid arguments. Thanks, PGPirate 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC-7)

A new form of recognition is needed

Hey ive been pointed in your direction by user, dyhydrogen monoxide. A few weeks ago i put a list up for FA lists. It failed so i was told to try the GA nomination list which i then did. It was taken off the list, apparently there isnt any such think as a good list ANYWHERE. I think a GA list award is needed for lists that are good, but not quite good enough. FA is tuff, does that make any list below it rubbish? no of course not. We need a method or recognising these articles. I want to start something for them, call it a new idea or whatever, wikipedia must learn to update and i believe it has an outdated policy on lists. By giving recognition to good lists it encourages people to go that extra mile. Im taking this seriously and i hope you will help. Realist2 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I think the point about not having "Good lists" is that with lists, they are either complete or they are not. There is no middle ground with lists whereas with articles, they need copyediting and more referencing and more fact checking than a list. People who want to go the extra mile go for Featured List status. We are not saying that everything below FL is rubbish, just that they need more work to be "excellent". Woody (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

But isnt that discouraging? There are thousands of lists on wikipedia, only a few are FA, but according to wikipedia all lists below FA are of the same quality. How can that be? Realist2 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Additionaly as wiki gets bigger and bigger there will be more and more lists, the 95% at the bottom are all the same quality and the 5% at the top are excellent. Come on, there has to be something that can be done, thats just not right, it doesnt fit at all. Realist2 (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

The Milhist project use the same assessment scale for lists as it does for everything else. They can be start, B and FL so they are not "all the same quality" and I don't know anybody who thinks they are. There are millions of article on Wikipedia but only 2000 are FA. The thing that has to be done: bring all the lists up to FL, that has to be a long term aim. What would you have the criteria for a "good list" be: it would have to have the same referencing as a FL to be accurate, it would have to be complete, you can't have it missing out bits of information, so what is stopping it being FL? Woody (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Well there is complete and there's 95% complete. If its a 95% complete list thats still quite good, 100% now thats excellent. Realist2 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I agree with Woody, I don't think there is much middle ground quality wise for lists, and having GLs would slow down the entire process quite a bit and we would have quite a few problems with finding reviewers. Out of curiosity, which list is it? -- Scorpion0422 08:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)
The only difference between lists and articles is that there is no GA step. A list can still be rated as a stub, start, or B-class list. The main difference being that lists only have one review-based class rather than two. This seems about right to me. Drewcifer (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Oppose I'd just like to say I oppose an idea of "Good Lists" per the comments above :) Gary King (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I've thought about this question before, but dismissed it for the reasons above. Lack of reviewers, added time to entire process, etc. As of right now, even the FLC community isn't the largest, and it can take weeks to gain consensus. Adding another classification wouldn't help, at least not now. Mastrchf (t/c) 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh FLC

I would like clarification on the FLC process, and am hoping more knowledgeable editors can do this. An editor by the name of Gary King, who isn't an administrator (not that I know there's a need to be one), supported the above list's nomination. A mere forty minutes later, the very same user promoted the article with the summary "promoting List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh (I'd like to try my hand at this, also)". Is this actually allowed? There's a clear conflict of interest here given the fact King supported the nomination, and I question the validity of just "trying one's hand" at promoting. If all aspects of Featured material was conducted in this, then it'd be a shambles. So yeah, what's going on? LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

It's generally frowned upon if an editor promotes a list they voted on where the decision is anything but clear-cut. But in this case Gary King was the 6th support vote compared to 0 opposes, so it was a very uncontroversial move (Remember 4 supports are all that is needed to promote, so even if we strike Gary's vote, the list would still be promoted). To explain the edit summary, Gary King has worked on many featured lists and WP:FLCs, but he had never promoted a list before. So he wanted to try his hand at it. Any user can promote a WP:FL (especially if it is very obvious the result). I see nothing wrong with Gary's actions. That said, you should never promote your own WP:FLC, nor should you close a discussion that you voted in if there is not a clear consensus. Hope this clears it up. Also, it is nice if you have problems with a certain editors actions, to bring it up with that editor first, or at least notify them about this thread (which I will do). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)
No harm no foul. In cases where the vote isn't so clear-cut, I could imagine a conflict of interest, but this one seems pretty straight-forward and harmless. Drewcifer (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Yeah, I'd appreciate if this was brought to me first. I agree that generally speaking, a person who has voted in a discussion should not also promote or fail it. As Gonzo said, that list was a clear cut pass. I did not intend on introducing any conflict of interest issues; in hindsight, I should not have voted in the nomination. In any case, I chose to promote that list because I have never done it so wanted to try it out since I was involved in WP:FLC a bit, and chose that particular list because it was a clear cut decision. Gary King (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Comprehensive long lists‎ discussion

For those that didn't participate in the recent FLRC for List of Arsenal F.C. players, there is currently a discussion about the issue here. All comments and opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion0422 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Page doesn't look complete yet, specifically the "This discussion has been prompted by problems that arose at FLC and FLRC, specifically at xxxxx and xxxxxx. The detailed debates can be viewed there." part. I wasn't involved with these goings-on so I can't chime in until that information is provided. Gary King (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Variable standard, egregious deficiencies in the process

I've not visited this page since copy-editing the criteria some time ago. I must say that I'm disturbed by the lack of rigour: I see prose and MOS issues all over the place in these nominations, but precious little critical comment. The standard of referencing leaves a lot to be desired in many cases. There are far too many drive-by supports that provide no evidence of even having read the nomination. There's an alarming absence of explicit references to the criteria (by number).

At FAC and FAR/C, we have much higher standards. I wonder whether attaining a star for a list means anything? TONY (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Now Tony, no need to insult all the hard-working reviewers here. Along with the majority of content review processes on Wikipedia, we suffer from a lack of top-quality reviewers. We have as many "drive-by" noms as FAC, you cannot tell whether someone has fully read the text by reading their text. Whilst it works for some, it is a woefully inadequate process by which to judge the majority of reviewers.
By their very nature, prose has never tended to be one of the main problems with featured lists, and the majority of reviewers cannot see the problems you do, as they don't have the requisite knowledge base. To demean the FL star is a bit over the top. If you have issues with lists, then take it to the talkpage. If they aren't acted on, then bring an FLRC in much the same way that the FAR process works. Even better, tackle the issues yourself. Woody (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Thanks for your reply, Woody. I don't for a minute intend to insult hard-working reviewers. The matters concerning me are not those of content. TONY (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I understand that you will have issues with prose and MOS, hell I do sometimes ;), but the only way to tackle that is to entice more quality reviewers to FLC. Woody (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Beggers can't be choosers, there's not much we can do other than hope that some more dedicated reviewers decide to show up. As for the MOS issues and prose, we try our best here, and if you have any issues with any specific lists, you can always leave comments or take them to FLRC. -- Scorpion0422 10:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
If he only had to choose one, I'd rather see Tony1 (talk · contribs) over at WP:FAC than WP:FLC because that's where he's needed most. (Not trying to be sarcastic if it looks that way...) And sure, we could always use some more reviewers, but we've also got some really dedicated ones right now, focusing on more list-related aspects including layout, style, etc. which they have a great eye for. The reviewers that come to mind right now are The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (I think he's supported or opposed every one of my lists so far!), Matthewedwards (talk · contribs), and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) (although I haven't seen him around as much lately). GaryKing (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I agree that the FLC standards are lower in some respects than those applied at FAC, but I think there is a valid reason for differing standards. That is, a comprehensive list is necessarily far more superficial in its treatment of the individual list elements than a comprehensive article would be. IMO, sourcing for the constituents of a list is generally sufficient if the sources support the definition of the list's scope, the inclusion of each element on the list, and the specific information included in each list entry. It is not necessary to tell a complete and verifiable story about each individual list element.
I don't think that the FLC process should be criticized for lack of explicit references to the criteria, as long as those criteria are being implicitly used in the review process. As to whether those criteria are being implicitly used, I perceive that several of the reviewers who participate regularly in FLC are implicitly using the criteria, but I also think that some "Support" votes are expressions of personal support for the subject matter (a variant of WP:ILIKEIT) or the aesthetic appeal of an article rather than applications of the FLC criteria. Perhaps the Wikipedians who close FLC discussions should adopt a practice of "not counting" support statements from users who have not provided some evaluation against FLC criteria.
I have observed that the recent FL population explosion is due in part to users targeting "low-hanging fruit." That is, a large fraction of the lists nominated for FL status are (1) very similar to existing FLs and/or (2) lists of well-defined finite collections of elements for which there is a single authoritative source. These lists typically get less scrutiny in FLC review than lists that "plow new ground," presumably because there is less need for scrutiny.
I perceive a tendency among reviewers to emphasize the technical and aesthetic aspects of lists (which can be particularly difficult for FLs -- in this respect, the FLC process may be more demanding than that for FAs), while de-emphasizing content and style in the associated article text. In my reviews, I often particularly emphasize criterion 2a (lead section), both because I think it is important and because it seems to get short shrift from other reviewers. --Orlady (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Did you really have to sign all of your paragraphs? It makes it look like you're having a conversation with yourself :) Gary King (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
(Smile). As long as you feel that way, I removed my sigs from individual paragraphs. I did that in anticipation of responses to specific paragraphs... --Orlady (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I don't agree with much of what Orlady wrote. There needs to be a culture of resisting a waterfall of nominations that aren't up to scratch. At FAC, if there aren't enough reviews, it's a difficult situation, and we don't see how an article can be comfortably promoted without proper analysis. Supports don't count nearly as much as the resolution of critical comments. It's justifiable, IMV, to maintain high standards. Why don't we discuss strategies to tighten up what happens here? TONY (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Could you point to a recently promoted list so we have a working example? Gary King (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Which parts of my comments don't you agree with, Tony? I wrote 4 paragraphs of comments both supportive and critical of the current process, so it is unlikely you disagree with all of it. As it happens, my opposition has been responsible for preventing several FLCs from becoming FLs, and in order to help resolve my concerns about other FLCs I've become a major contributor to some of them. I have learned to refrain from commenting on lists where I have little knowledge of or interest in the subject matter (e.g., discographies, sports team rosters, TV episodes) because following up on comments can become a major time sink, and I don't want to be committed to follow-up on lists about which I am profoundly ignorant and that don't even vaguely interest me. --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
“ It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

--Theodore Roosevelt

 ”
Coming here and complaining does little to nothing except for make people who work here (the man who is "in the arena") angry, feel under-appreciated, and degraded. By all means, if you have direct examples then show them. I am sure there are many people who would be glad to try and fix lists that you feel have problems but coming here and saying what you said makes you look like a Monday morning quarterback. I mean come on, isn't the whole premise of this encyclopedia to be WP:BOLD if you see a mistake? I mean seriously, if Scorpion or Matthew or the Rambling Man came here and said that there are problems, I would listen because they are "in the arena" doing the dirty work. But you come here complaining about our process, having one edit to a WP:FLC in as long as I can remember, makes me just annoyed. Listen to our old pal Theo and first get in the arena before you criticize our system. Also, if you are going to criticize something, it is best to give some evidence, so that we can address your concerns. Criticism without evidence is pointless and does nothing to help the process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Well said, Gonzo. I'd like to say that, as someone who submits FLCs, I am always willing to accept constructive criticism for my lists, as long as it helps to improve them. That's the whole point of this process. As I've mentioned, I've had two lists fail because they didn't meet the standards, and I find those moments as great learning experiences. Also, it helps to have as many eyes on list candidates as possible, because quite often someone working on a list for a few days or weeks might overlook a few things because they have become so attached to a layout that they have decided for the list. FLC will always play second fiddle to FAC, and that's the way it should be, but FLC could always use more help. Gary King (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
My computer's playing games on me, so until I reformat the harddrive tomorrow I won't comment much here, other than saying thank you to Gary and Gonzo for their confidence in me and my abilities to review and support/oppose as I see fit.
I think I've commented in 90% of the nominations since September last year (which is when I nominated my first list). I almost always make an attempt to give a "peer review" before making a decision, if I don't, it's because I've taken part in a Peer Review proper, or everyone else has covered everything. The MOS is something I always take into consideration, there may be things I miss, but I have confidence in the other regular reviewers that when I do, someone else won't. I'm a stickler for WP:CS, WP:MOS and especially WP:MOSNUM, WP:LEAD, WP:DASH and a number of others when something jumps out of the screen at me, even if it's a list about a subject I have no knowledge, I'll always try to find something that will improve.
There are a number of other regulars to the project who I feel do a good job, and always welcome and respect their comments in my nominations, and those from other people. I won't say who, because it's likely I'll forget some, and I don't want to do that.
To not take part in the reviews and nominations, and then come along and rag on the people who do is very disrespectful. I suggest you (a) take part in the FLC process, then criticize; (b) be less vague and name some people who's reviews you have issues with; (c) be less vague and name some promoted lists you have issues with; (d) take part in the FLC process; (e) open up Peer Reviews for the lists you feel are substandard; (f) take them to WP:FLRC; (g) Be bold and edit the lists to how you feel they should be; and (h) take part in the FLC process.
Saying that, it slightly bothers me that all is needed is four supports including the nomination to promote. I don't think it's enough and it should be raised to six maybe, but there aren't enough people who take part in the process for that to happen. There are some lists here well after ten days with only one support other than the nominator's. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Actually, another thing that bothers me is when members from a WikiProject come along and support, just because the list is a part of that project. I'm not talking about any particular specific one, I just notice when it happens. But this and other one-timers is hardly fair to pick on us about it, and you are, because only the regulars to this project will have this page watchlisted, and only us will bother to take part in this thread. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)

(←)Matthew, I agree with every point you made, especially the last one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I also agree with Matthew's comments. In particularly I also must agree that to come complain if you don't personally take part in the reviews and nominations regularly is akin to whining about who won the election if you didn't bother to vote. I also agree on the last bit. Now I will generally look at any list for the Anime and Manga project, my core work area, and the Television project, another area of interest. However, I will never just support because it is in the project and will look over them with a very critical eye. I think being part of the project should, in fact, mean being pickier on the lists (and articles for GA/FA) that are in our project that go to FL, as it reflects on the project as a whole. I'm also probably a rather harsh reviewer in PRs for the same reason. Pride in my work and wanting my project to reflect our best work, not our best vote plugging. Unfortunately, I know there are other projects and maybe even people in our project who do just as Matthew says and votes support just because its a project page. I don't know if the supports need to go up from 4 to 6, or if just discounting any support that is nothing more than "support" and a signature without any substance. Occasionally I've seen a list that I felt was good, but I'll still note why I feel its ready as is and that I could find no fault. Collectonian (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

  • Some reviewers here are framing themselves as being "in the arena", but surely the nominators are that and the reviewers are critics (or they should be). It's clear from the comments above that drive-by supports are a problem. I disagree that FLC should somehow cast itself as playing second fiddle to FAC: it should be entirely equal. But for that to be the case, a tighter, more critical culture needs to evolve. TONY (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Further comment: The FA instructions make interesting reading in relation to this debate:

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in their judgment:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

TONY (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

To address a few points:
  • Thank you so much Tony for that wonderful lecture on how the FA process works, I'm sure you have really enlightened all of us here.
  • Just to clear it up, Mr. Roosevelt was talking about how useless the man who is a critic of a process he is not part of and how the man who actually does the work deserves better than the critic. For the sake of our great president, please don't misconstrue what he said (i.e. the person who complains about his politicians but never voted in the election).
  • You failed to address any of the concerns brought up by your peers.
  • You failed to give any direct evidence to support your claims.
  • Can you stop complaining and give some evidence/support/certain lists that you feel are inadequate. I am sure the people here would have a tad more respect for you and what you are saying if you participated in the process and gave us examples to work off of. Right now your just annoying people. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Although to be fair, overall, I think having discussions like this is better than not having any at all. We really have to review the WP:FAC and WP:FLC processes every so often to see where we can tweak them to make them better. And regarding my comment on FLC playing second fiddle, what I was trying to get across was that if we had to split reviewers between the two, then FAC should have higher importance. I understand that 'equality' is preferred with the two, but on the other hand, I don't want to see a mad drove of reviewers come to FLC when the current balance is more or less working out fairly well. Gary King (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
My main point is dont fix something that isnt broke, and Tony has failed to show me that the FLC process is broke. By all means, if there were examples I would love to review the process and have loads and loads of discussion on how we can make it better. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I'd also really like to see which lists, or which nominations he has issues with. And if it's the criteria that is the problem, then that needs working on, instead of telling the regular folk here that they're failing. If they are failing, its because of the criteria, not the disregard of it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

WikiProject Discographies

At the risk of blatant WikiProject advertisement, I thought I'd let everyone know about the new Discography WikiProject. As far as I know this is the first list-based WikiProject, so I thought it was worth mentioning. There's been alot of scattered discussion about discography style as of late, so I hope this project can act as a central hub for those discussions, and once consensus is reached, to provide a style guide of some sort. Anyways, take a look and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

There is a lists WikiProject, but they don't do much. As for a style guide, that would be a huge help because we see a lot of variety among some of the discographies that pass through here. -- Scorpion0422 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
As long as it's thoroughly reviewed and compliant with, you guessed it, the manual of style! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Criterion 2

Criterion 2: "controversial" might imply that the topic can't be controversial (List of abortion rates in US states). What is meant is that the inclusion criteria are uncontested, yes? The linked article appears to cover controversial topics. TONY (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Should we have a FL director?

At the above request, this question should at least be under its own heading. It would be good to determine whether the WP:FL community thinks it should have a Director, before we propose it to the wider community. Thus, here is the question to determine: Should we have a FL director? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

  • Support. I think it is in the best interests of WP:FL to have a director, this would help streamline the process, while also making it harder for "bad" less then stellar lists to be pushed through WP:FLC, while also making it easier by only having one/two people close lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7) Comment changed 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support I support the idea. I'm sure most people will. The bigger question is who will be the director(s). Also, I resent the fact that a list can be "bad", because any article or list on Wikipedia can be improved if given the care and if nurtured well :p Gary King (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Weak Support not so much because I think it will dramatically improve the quality of the lists, but because we basically already have such a system (only a couple editors regularly close FLCs). An FL director of some sort would help avoid the occasional closed-FLC controversy, but I'm not convinced this will improve the quality of lists all that much. That kind of thing is better left to improvements in the criteria and a cultivation of a tough-as-nails FLC culture. But hey, prove me wrong! Drewcifer (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
    • It'd probably help if FLC had more active people than it does now. It's not as glamorous as it used to be... Gary King (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • As the operator of the bot handling closes, I would prefer some sort of whitelist to avoid situations like this. Gimmetrow 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
    • Semi-protection could do the trick, too, but yeah, a whitelist would be more appropriate once we deal with this whole FLC director situation. Gary King (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • I support thinking about having a director, although I think that we should address the problems with the criteria first. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support—One or two? I think two is more practicable, given that people need to take time off Wiki occasionally. It also gives greater flexibility where there may be conflict-of-interest issues for one or the other. TONY (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7) PS I put a brief note and link to here at VP. TONY (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support I have always said that there needs to be an FL Director. I would also suggest that there should be two, though I would prefer to clean up the criteria first. Woody (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support as Woody suggests, two + tighter criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Neutral I've never really thought that the process needed a director, but if that's what everyone else wants, then I can agree to it. -- Scorpion0422 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support. It has to be wrong that a list can be starred as the best that Wikipedia has to offer on the basis of nom plus three supports offering no review or comment. Regardless of the adequacy of the current criteria, the interests of Wikipedia as a whole require the award of a star to be the result of a thorough review, and if having directors would ensure it got a thorough review (even if the lack of active reviewers meant the list waiting at FLC till hell froze over before it got one) then I'm all for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support I've thought about this for a while, and I thin it'd be a great idea. I agree with Tony1 in that there should be two. The question is who? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support, indispensable, without it, FL can be "vote-stacked" and there is no overriding authority who can decide if something is a list or article, and no doubt in my mind that the two candidates should come from the list of names who I've seen most frequently associated with FLC, but who also understand standards and procedures at FAC (so FLC can move that direction): Colin, Scorpion0422, The Rambling Man and Woody. Dweller is another editor active at FLC who also understands FAC and the direction FLC might need to move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support - two please. --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support and agree that two directors would be preferable. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support and yes, two is good. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support, agree that two is good. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support - Two, just like the Consuls of Rome : ) - jc37 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Support and change the flexibility of the suggestions of how long to keep nominations open and when to promote. If a list is ready, it's ready, if it's not, it's not. A full-time director (or two) would be able to see that on a longer-term, individual case-by-case basis. Peanut4 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and two sounds like a good idea...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Works well at FAC. Though I think that that there should be some way to break disagreements among directors, either elect 3 so they can vote or if 2 are elected make one director, and one vice director. -Ravedave (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'd envisaged that the directors wouldn't come into conflict over individual archive/promote decisions, and that they'd embark on a process of allocating the nominations between them on whatever basis they see fit. One might ask the other for a second opinion from time to time, and they will probably want to discuss general practice on a regular basis, at least until things are ironed out and running smoothly. If there were occasionally disagreementa, it should be possible to resolve them amicably. That is in the spirit of the project, and is the case between Raul, Sandy and Marskell at FAC and FAR/C. TONY (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know how Joelr31 and Marskell divvy up the work at FAR, but Raul and I do not correspond off-Wiki about FAC promotions, have any pre-set agreement, nor have any need to figure out how to divvy up the work. It just works (we had one edit conflict one time because FAC was backlogged while I was traveling, and we both tried to clear some out at the same time). If I am about to close something controversial, or if I'm unsure, I post to Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that elections run for two weeks from today, and that we ask User:Raul654 to close the vote and appoint the directors at that time. Any other ideas ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Just a suggestion, but for future runs, I'd suggest 1 week rather than 2. - jc37 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
It's not set in stone yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Noting (for posterity) that Tony promulgated this proposal at several other featured process pages and at the Village Pump: [1][2][3][4]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Add one: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed it but there doesn't seem to be a specific period of office for the appointments. Presumably we are talking about annual elections? --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I responded to that below. Personally, I don't feel the need for "term limits". Someone could burn out or need to step aside in six months, or still be going strong in two years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
All the more reason to have a fixed term :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
My assumption was an indefinite term, until the people decide to form a revolution and demand for a new FLC director. Gary King (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
That's a really bad way of doing it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I know, but that's what I assumed how it would work. Isn't that how it works at FAC? Or are there really terms? :| Gary King (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
This one doesn't have to be modelled on FAC in every respect. The main problem with the "revolution to replace the director/s" route is the bad feeling and ruffled feathers it might/would generate. There's something very calm and unemotional about electing people on a regular basis. It may also be a blessing in disguise: it means that the actual director can see an end in sight and, even if their interest is flagging, will stick with it to the next election so as not to let people down. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I'm fine either way, but which directors on Wikipedia have terms? Gary King (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There is only one director on Wiki now (Raul), so that's an N=1 question. ArbCom members have terms, and I believe Project Coordinators have terms. Roger is right; FLC doesn't have to pattern everything after FAC. I'm fine either way, although I don't see the need for terms. That should be an internal FLC decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems unnecessary to have terms because I'm sure most of the time, we'd just elect the same person again if they did a great job the first time around. This is especially true if we have no one else that has done the job before them that we can use as a comparison. Gary King (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's right to keep re-electing someone who is doing a great job. What's wrong is to elect someone to a job for life because they might do a great job. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Roger that this doesn't at all have to be modelled on FAC (although let's steal from them and any other feature-content process any bits we feel are appropriate). I also agree with Gary that fixed terms for the directors are unnecessary. While fixed terms would guarantee fresh blood at predictable intervals, they would carry the risk of the pandering, ducking and swaying that electoral politics can foster, even in the most well-meaning representative; this is particularly the case in the lead-up to an election where another term is sought by the incumbent(s), and where other aspirants might be tempted to curry favour among potential voters. It's the right way to conduct this initial phase, but after this, I think it might be best to manage the issue (if/when it becomes necessary) by consensus here with reference to Raul. He is, after all, the most senior and experienced person in this business, and has earned a certain status in the project, I believe. (This is provided he's willing to advise in such a situation.) I want to add that those who are not chosen for the task in this vote should on no account feel that they lack the skills and experience to do it. It's a good field, IMO. TONY (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely, this revisits the argument for sbsolute monarchy versus elected president? What troubles me is that no one has yet provided a good reason why the winning candidates should be chosen as directors in perpepuity. No one has yet even hinted at, let alone proposed, a process to remove the director should they lose interest or move on. The whole notion of a director for life is profoundly unWikipedian and I'm surprised that there is so little clamour against it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidates

Main article: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director

A new page

Main article: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director

I was wondering if we should move this to a seperate page, because this could get large and messy fast. -- Scorpion0422 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Probably a good idea, but maybe we can let it run here a bit longer to see if any changes in form happen first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Just do it Gary King (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Seconded, please. Save people's watchlists already...Collectonian (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Where does this leave FLR?

Would the director handle the FLR process, or would someone else do it? I've been handling most of the FLRC closures as of late, and I would be willing to continue doing it. -- Scorpion0422 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Keeping them separate helps avoid COI, and since it has very low volume, probably you could be a delegate of the FL directors there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
If I do decide not to run, then I can do that. -- Scorpion0422 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Colin's request

I know this director thing has a lot of support, but I don't think there's yet been a good explanation of how having a director would cure our ills. Perhaps the candidates would like to offer suggestions and say what they think is wrong with the current system that they would change. As many people have said, a lack of quality reviewers is the main problem. Sure, we could eliminate some of the explicit rules about minimum 10 days, 4 support (though I personally think 3 days is too little -- got to allow for enough time for people who don't logon every day to notice and review). I could see a strong argument if the current ad hoc promotion / rejection was being abused or those involved were clearly inadequate for the job. Is that the case? The promoters can only work with what they are given. The Rambling Man say's he'd like to see "a more stringent set of criteria". Well that can be determined without a director and needs community consensus. Propose your changes now.

Would the director be allowed to !vote on an article? Are folk here aware how much the review process at FAC was affected when Sandy could no longer comment so freely? If The Rambling Man, to pick one name, stopped commenting, the amount of text at FLC would half. I see that our current informal director, Scorpion, doesn't comment much any more. Perhaps some of our recent reviewers don't know that it wasn't always this way. When FLC started, there were two or three informal directors who both commented and promoted. It worked. I suppose if they !voted in a way that was against consensus or strongly objected-to by the nominator, then they'd recuse themselves from the process. What rules do we want at FLC wrt the director's participation? Should he give a closing comment?

The current process can be criticised as a system, but once you're a director it gets personal. You take responsibility for that promotion/rejection and patiently suffer any later abuse. Any director needs a thick skin and maturity. Since this appointment is designed to shake things up (rather than slightly improve the current system), it would be very helpful to know (a) the candidate's track record in performing promotions/rejections and/or (b) examples of lists the candidate would have handled differently (allowed more time, or decided differently, etc). Colin°Talk 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I wouldn't see how anyone would have to cease commenting, and if someone is the director, then there really is no need for them to "vote" in the process. If the director promotes the list, than he supported it, and vice-versa. I do agree that we need to define the scope of the directorship. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2008.
The director should always stay neutral. The director should fail lists that have unresolved comments even if he supports it and vice-versa.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but why would he be in that position? If his opinion is in conflict with consensus, other than rarely, then either he should go because his opinions aren't good, or he should go because his reviewers aren't good and he's wasting his time. In the rare case his !vote would disagree with the consensus, he should ask the other director to process the nomination. The question is whether he should do that for all times he !votes? Colin°Talk 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like Sandy at FAC, I think it's acceptable for a director to post comments but not to vote either support or oppose. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Sandy has successfully walked a tightrope between the appearance of too close an involvement in the reviewing process (conflict of interest) and a completely laissez faire approach. I think her brief comments on some nomination pages concerning (1) due process and (2) citations (in which she has greater expertise than anyone), have achieved this quite well. I think her openness to discourse on the FAC, FA Criteria and personal talk pages has been at some personal cost in time and risk of flack from prickly nominators, but has reinforced the transparency of what is a fairly complex process. Perhaps the lesson for directors here is to:
  1. be judicious in commenting, but do so when you feel it's quite necessary;
  2. provide feedback/information in response to nominaors' queries, but keep it succinct for the sake of your own sanity and to keep your workload under management; and
  3. liaise with the other director where there's a potential conflict of interest or where you feel a second opinion is required.
The directors would certainly not make declarations of Support or Oppose, and I go with Crzy on the neutral bit: the act of archiving or promoting is not a result of personal preference, but a "disinterested" assessment of the reviews in relation to the text of the nominated list. What to do when reviews are thin on the ground (or show no engagement with the material and the criteria—the so-called drive-by declarations—is the greatest challenge. TONY (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Filiocht and ALoan would be turning in their wiki-graves at the suggestion that the featured list process is unable to operate without a "director" being anointed to pass judgement over the efforts of other contributors.

As Colin says above, Wikipedians talk and discuss amongst themselves to resolve problems and reach a consensus. Leadership in the feature list process - to the extent that there is any - has devolved from the mutual respect for the contribution and participation of others. Judging consensus (or its absence) is seldom difficult - and the times when it is difficult to determine are precisely the times when more discussion is required, not the imposition of a judgement by a cabal of one or two individuals. Archiving nominations and tagging talk pages is simply a mechanical process (indeed, so mechanical that a bot can do it).

What are the perceived problems with the process?

  • That the FL criteria are unclear? Then suggest improvements. The FLC process has managed to muddle along for several years now, notwithstanding perceived problems with the criteria; in any event, the current FL criteria are based on the a previous version of the FA criteria.
  • That there are drive-by nominations? They will clearly fail, unless someone brings them up to scratch.
  • That there are pile-on support votes? All it takes to derail a nomination is someone raising some actionable objections.
  • That inadequate lists are passing? Name them, and nominate them at FLRC.

There is already a substantial undercurrent of opposition to Raul654's perpetual position as FAC Director, and there is no need to repeat that here. Is Raul654 (or his "delegate") claiming the right to govern all featured content now? -- Testing times (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been no suggestion that Raul or Sandy take over FL. There is a risk in having fixed appointed director(s) that they may take the process down a path that doesn't meet consensus, or that they become a target for complains whose solution they can't be expected to find (such as finding more and better reviewers). If all we achieve in this process is the change from informal to formal directorship, then the process will not be improved. Colin°Talk 12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with most of what the redlink says above. In particular, no one is "claiming the right to govern all featured content now"—what a ridiculous suggestion. I think Raul probably hasn't been asked yet, and I do hope he agrees. We need someone who's distant and disinterested as a reference point, and he would be ideal. Colin, directors who were not seen to be generally managing the process properly and fairly would not survive. The process clearly does need to be put on a different footing; everyone seems to agree that this is the case. TONY (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Who can resist a red-linked conspiracy theory ? Neither Raul nor I are involved with featured lists; the idea that a director is needed here came up at the talk page of FAC when we were discussing once whether a particular page should be at FAC or at FLC, and no consensus emerged. OK, if I erred in suggesting that Raul—as a completely uninvolved party—should close the vote here, someone please put forward the name of another uninvolved beaurocrat who might close the voting. The way the voting is going, it looks like it's not going to be difficult anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As you know, I've taken issue with Raul on a number of occasions publicly. But that doesn't stop my believing that involving him is a good idea, so that we have recourse to someone outside this immediate page if basic issues come up. Probably it would be rare if it happened at all. He's a very reasonable fellow, I believe, and a bureacrat. He is in no mood to be burdened with extra responsibilities on a regular basis, I suspect. TONY (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should to knuckle my forehead and apologise for being a lowly red-link - and no doubt I run the risk of being attacked again as a conspiracy theorist - but will one of the exalted green-links above address the substance of my comment above: What are the perceived problems with the featured list process? What would a "featured list director" do to solve those problems that cannot be done using existing mechanisms? There are plenty of wiki-processes that manage to operate successfully - like the featured list process has for almost 3 years - without a tsar being appointed to keep us serfs in order.

User:SandyGeorgia refers to a conversation at WT:FAC. Is it the one here? The one in which User:SandyGeorgia says: "Last I knew, vote stacking was possible at FLC because there is no director/delegate, and Lists pass automatically with a specified level of Support." and then "because there is no director/delegate at FLC, votestacking leading to varying standards"? Is there any evidence of this actually happening? -- Testing times (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the conversation I referenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, SandyGeorgia. Excuse me for saying so, but it does not shed much light on the conversation you were talking about. It would be much easier if you could refer me to it directly, rather than my having to guess again. Pretty please?
I'd also be exceptionally grateful if someone other than Dweller (to whom many thanks) would essay an answer the substantive questions. Perhaps the best place would be here. I would be particularly interested to see the views of the candidate directors. -- Testing times (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't easy. Lots of talk, never resolved:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, SandyGeorgia. The first three are helpful background, but, as far as I can see, only the last of mentions the possibility of a director for the featured list process - User:Raul654 asks whether there is a counterpart "who makes executive decisions". Is the whole idea of creating this position simply to give User:Raul654 (and his delegates) someone to speak to and "make executive decisions" together?
As I have said before, WP:FLC - like most wiki processes - has traditionally relied on interested people taking a hand to maintain and run them. Somewhat inevitably, this leads to de facto leadership - a few people do most of the work - but does this necessarily need to me memorialised by putting a grand hat on someone's head and pinning a shiny badge on their chest? It seems pretty silly to me to be granting the grand hats and shiny badges without clarifying (a) what the position is intended to achieve, and (b) how long it lasts.
I find it somewhat disheartening that so few people have participated in this debate, but so many have run to vote over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director. Shrug. As I have said elsewhere, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. -- Testing times (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting quote from SandyGeorgia! So the reason vote stacking is happening because there is no director? Funny! There are instances of vote stacking at FAC as well, and there is a director and a deputy at FAC. No one can avoid vote stacking, it's impossible unless you revert those edits/votes. The real question should be does the vote stacking actually work? The answer is no! Not at FAC and not at FLC, even though one process has a director and the other does not. The only reason why there may be instances of FL with low standards being promoted is the lack of reviewers, high quality reviewers. I review lists and I don't consider myself a high quality reviewer, but I know that I do the best I can. I support when I don't see any flaws and if there are a couple of more reviewers with the level of knowledge similar to mine and they support, too, then that list is going to be promoted. No one can do anything about it, unless a reviewer with sharper eyes comes in and points to the flaws I (among others) couldn't see. Don't get me wrong, I hate vote stacking as well, but I am fine with it because it just doesn't work. The only thing vote stacking does is to increase the number of supports, but seriously does it really matter if a list is promoted with 10 supports rather than 4? Not to me! Again, the biggest problem the FLC process has is the lack of high quality reviewers and we're here talking about electing a director, who has no clear duties or responsibilities.--Crzycheetah 00:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder - do you think someone may answer my questions if I repeat them over here? -- Testing times (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(od)I'm not convinced that appointing a director for life is the panacea for all FLC's ills. Sure, there's merit in having a director for six months, or maybe a year, but then review the situation to see whether it's working. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, pls consider Tony's response above to your concern: While fixed terms would guarantee fresh blood at predictable intervals, they would carry the risk of the pandering, ducking and swaying that electoral politics can foster, even in the most well-meaning representative; this is particularly the case in the lead-up to an election where another term is sought by the incumbent(s), and where other aspirants might be tempted to curry favour among potential voters. If a director does a bad job, the community can always replace them, but if a director has to be re-elected often, you do open the door to electoral politics and pandering. A director needs to be assured they don't have to give in to all the on- and off-Wiki pleas for promotion, or risk being voted out next time by someone who will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I read what Tony wrote with interest and agree with some of what he says. However, these risks are inherent in any electoral system. (One simple fix for all the pandering issues is to make the terms one-off.) The question is whether a fixed-term system, with all its flaws, is better than a job-for-life one. I personally believe it is. For a start, electing a candidate for life shuts the door forever on any better-qualified, better-suited candidates that come along. Then, there's the argument that people inevitably lose interest after qa long period of tenure. The American presidency is elected for two fixed terms. There are sound reasons for that :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about it being forever: it's demanding work, and it really dries up the chocolate supply fast.  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that :) I have a similar fulltime job. It's precisely because of the burn-out factor that I think fixed-terms are essential. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the camp where I'd like to see how things play out with a director for a month before making a decision on this. Obviously it'd be better to make this decision before we pick a director, though, but I also wouldn't want to be stuck with a decision that we decide is not the best option. Gary King (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Roger, you basically made the same argument three times on this page. Please keep it to one thread. Let's make it this one :) I agree with Tony's point that Sandy reiterated. Basically, if people are not happy with someone's work, then they will bring it up on the talk page, where other people would pile on and state whether they want to remove or keep the director. I think it's actually very wiki-like, contrary to what you said above where it wasn't. It allows for ad hoc discussions when they are needed. Less is better so as to not get in the way of someone's job just for the sake of getting in the way and possibly making a WP:POINT. Also, I'm not sure how it works over at WP:FAC; is Raul appointed perpetually, like what we are proposing for the FLC director? Gary King (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Raul is there for life and there is no process to unseat him. Can you begin to imagine how divisive and unpleasant it would be trying to replace him? --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And Gary, Roger really can respond wherever and as often as he wants to, 'ya know?  :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok... Gary King (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The analogy is more appropriate with judicial officers—judges and magistrates—than with elected political representatives. Aside from the disastrous experience in some US states where judges are indeed subject to direct electoral competition, their technical decision-making above the arena of politics is what keeps them and the process clean. TONY (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. The director shouldn't have to play politics to keep people happy; they should do the work they think is right. Without terms, it would be like becoming an administrator on Wikipedia in that there are no terms for that position, and you are not competing for a spot with other people because there is no set limit to the total number of administrators. Gary King (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that example - minor judges and small town sheriffs - was the one that sprang to my mind too. I doubt though that you are suggesting that after six months or so in office our candidates here will become so susceptible to corruption that we need to elect them for life in order to protect them from themselves :))))
That said, my feeling is that if the role of director is that pivotal to process, the process should be changed. I'm a great believer in transparency. In Milhist, we have a reasonably robust A-class review system, which is simplicity itself. An article needs to garner three supports and no significant opposes in four days for promotion. The review can be closed after four days by any of the (ten) coordinators. It generates no drama whatsoever. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Milhist is a very active project. Possibly more so than FLC. The current system at FLC usually generates no drama either. Inadequate lists aren't getting promoted because the director (official or not) isn't behaving within the rules. They get promoted because not enough good quality reviewers pointed out their inadequacies (i.e., nobody). Some imaginative thinking, like Dweller's list of troubled nominations, should help, but ultimately we just need more good reviewers. For example, if a list looks good and has support but is based on a lot of personal home pages (thus failing WP:V), and nobody has mentioned this, what should our director do? Two negative results:
  1. Scorpion's role becomes much more visible. He receives more blame. He gets stressed out and leaves (the role, or WP).
  2. The Rambling Man feels he can no longer comment at FLC as he must appear completely neutral. Lists get even less reviews than before, forcing him to promote stuff he'd rather not. He gets stressed out and leaves.
I'm not worried that those two will be bad directors. If they are, I don't get the impression that they'd stubbornly hold onto power in the face of protest. I'd rather we worried less about the term of office and more about what we're expecting these guys to achieve. Colin°Talk 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a case for a short-comment intervention by one of the directors, if only to marshal the reviewers who are around. Sandy does a bit of that, but tries to minimise it. TONY (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The directors might best have a dual role of being firm about some things and encouraging both reviewers and nominators into a good culture for everyone, and the system. It's challenging, but I think those in the candidature will rise to it. TONY (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. It's a major problem. If you promote two of your best reviewers you make the problem worse rather than better. Thinking radically, a solution might be to merge FAC and FLC. It would be easier to advertise and recruit for new reviewers as there'd be a broader base of material to work on. It might also solve some of the quality problems. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Colin, with two directors, The Rambling Man's participation won't be lost; Scorpion0422 can close when TRM comments. Roger, In Milhist, we have a reasonably robust A-class review system, which is simplicity itself. An article needs to garner three supports and no significant opposes in four days for promotion. The review can be closed after four days by any of the (ten) coordinators. I can see why it works at MilHist A-class reviews. I can't even touch this without getting into sticky issues: I can't begin to tell you how disastrous this approach would be at FAC (and I've got a spreadsheet full of data that quantifies my concerns. :-) I had to adjust to the delegate role, and the way I've chosen (my choice) to do the job has created some pressure for me, but I believe FAC is working, I think I've now adjusted to a pattern that won't lead to burnout (too fast, anyway, and mostly because some other editors are now doing some of the background work I always did for Raul :-) and I believe FLC will benefit overall from a director (as long as there are two, so neither one is constrained on commenting). If I see an article at FAC that I really can't bear to promote, I'll oppose and pass it to Raul. (Edit conflict: no the merge :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I am just guessing here that you didn't look at the FLC nominations at all. If you actually did, you'd see that The Rambling Man leaves comments on every nomination since he's been here. Basically, what your comment above implies is that Scorpion0422 is going to close all nominations. OR We need to ask our most active reviewer(TRM) to review about 50% of the nominations at most.--Crzycheetah 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's an incorrect assumption :-) What I am assuming is that, if TRM thought that the process would be damaged by him not being able to comment as freely on every FLC, he would not have supported (above) the proposal for a director. And the director/delegate isn't muzzled: when a FAC has consensus to promote, but I can easily spot a glaring deficiency that hasn't been raised on the FAC, I point it out (after sufficient discussion, so my comments won't bias the FAC). And ... if TRM is really having to do that much, it's time for others to begin to fill those shoes. That will mean some adjustment (I was very frustrated initially as FAC delegate because no one took over doing the tasks I had been doing, and I felt like I was trying to be Raul and me at the same time: now others have begun to take over, and several of them are doing it far better than I ever did, example, Ealdgyth's work ... sometimes when a strong participant moves into a different role, the process actually can improve). And another point: there would be nothing wrong with Scorpion doing most closings and TRM continuing to comment on most FLCs, just as Marskell does almost all of the closings at FAR, and Joelr31 comes in as needed, or I'm now doing most of the FAC closings, but Raul is there whenever needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Group, not director(s)

For a most of early 2007, I found myself in the position of being (sort of) the de facto FL director, in that I promoting/failing the vast majority of candidates. At the time I expressed concern that this resulted in too much power being concentrated in the hands of one person (i.e. me). It is inevitable that each editor will have slightly different feelings about exactly how the FL criteria should be interpreted, and thus which lists get promoted will (in part) be reflection of their views. This is why I feel that there shoudln't be one director. Secondly, I feel the current rate of nominations is too high for one or two people to comfortably handle.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we have a system whereby there is group of editors allowed to promote/fail candidates. There should be no restrictions on the size of the group, merely that the community approve any given editor's membership of the group. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom, that's the system we have now. It's too diffuse. Besides, simplifying and tightening up the criteria will make everyone's job easier and, if anything, less prone to the vagaries of subjective judgement (not totally, but less). TONY (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... not really. Currently, anyone can promote an article. I'm suggesting that there is a formal list of editors who have power to promote/fail candidates. I agree that refining the criteria will help, but these matters are always going to have some subjectiveness (is that a word?). Tompw (talk) (review) 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I wouldn't mind there being a group of maybe three or four editors. That way, there are more people to answer questions and handle closures (especially since I won't be on much during the summer). However, the downside is that more people means more interpretations of policy, and a list one person thinks should remain open a little longer could be closed immediately by someone else, etc. -- Scorpion0422 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope others will let new directors get their feet wet before piling more change on to change; I suspect/predict you're going to find this to be much simpler than any of you imagine. For one thing, the list size will probably decrease as directors are no longer constrained by the ten days. Some lists will be clearly promotable after five or six days, and some lists will be clearly archivable after three or four days. Also, you can delegate some jobs (as I have on archiving premature noms by uninvolved editors). I hope other editors will allow the new directors time to work out how they plan to divvy up the work, but I don't foresee it being an issue. (By the way, can I encourage you all to stop using the word "failing" for archiving nominations? It's very off-putting to nominators.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The ten day rule should stay, IMO. I can see how allowing lists to be quick-failed can help, but quick-promoting lists is just wrong. You have to give some time for the reviewers to do their job. Maybe a reviewer will come along on the 7th day and point to a major error that wasn't noticed before. I see that promoting lists prematurely will eventually increase a number of candidates for WP:FLR.--Crzycheetah 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Quick-fail" (there's that "fail" again) and "quick-promote" are your words, not mine; I know of no such beast. As I said, with a director, there will be cases where they will be able to see consensus to promote or archive sooner. For example, suppose a drive-by nominator puts up a list that gets six opposes the first day and then never returns to the nomination. Why should that be carried for ten days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
One thing that seems to be a problem, in my opinion, is that the majority of lists come here before peer review, so the ten days is usually required in order to solve all the typos, MOS breaches etc which should have been picked up before submission at FLC. If a list has been properly reviewed before it gets here then I agree with Sandy that there'd be no problem with a quicker pass. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not suggesting "more change", I was suggetsing an alternative to the system that is being proposed. I agree with TRM that these days, nominees are generally "almost, bnut not quite", and just need some polishing. (I don't see nearly as many obvious fails as I used to). Thus, regardless of what happens with a directorate, I would strongly oppose a reduction in the ten days minimum review time. If a list is good enough, another few days don't matter (WP doesn't have any deadlines). Finally, I won't stop using the word "failure". It gets used on all the relevent FL pages (such as WP:FLC and the log), and I don't think its use discourages potential nominators. (I've nominated lists that have failed, it never discouraged me). Tompw (talk) (review) 09:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

←FAC and FAR/C seem to work quite well without strict timings. Are the conditions different here in that respect? TONY (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:WBFLN

Reform of FLC criteria and instructions

Dear colleagues

Along with the creation of a directorate, I think we all agree that the governing text needs an overhaul. I suggest that we get this going soon, since it should involve all of the contributors here, not just the directors, and it would be a great advantage for the system to be adjusted as soon as possible after the new system starts, rather than dragging the reform process out.

I suppose debate should occur on the talk page of FL Criteria—do people agree?

May I suggest that a dedicated section be established there for people to suggest:

  1. which parts of the FAC instructions might be borrowed/adapted to meet the requirements of the new ternary process involving nominators, reviewers and directors;
  2. how we might get Criterion 1 right, building on the discussion above; and
  3. which other parts of the criteria might need to be modified, and what might be added or removed from the criteria.

WRT issue 3, I question whether editors should feel obliged to repeat the title at the start of the lead? It seems a very unengaging way to start a featured list. Just today, I saw this (title, then opening of the lead):

  • List of National Parks of Canada. This is a list of National Parks of Canada. Canadian National Parks ...

The obvious question is why we need to immediately tell our readers that the title pertains to the text? TONY (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I believe editors want to follow WP:LEAD as our criteria suggests. I found this section that states The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence. If you have problems with it, you should start a discussion at WT:LEAD first.--Crzycheetah 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm willing to do that, but only if I know people here will support me in a bid to have an exception written in for lists. Is there such support? If there are enough indications here, I can link back to this section and present an argument. Of course, in articles, for which the guidelins on leads were written, I guess, it's much more appropriate to make explicit (bolded) reference to the topic at the opening. The problem with list titles/leads is that they start "List of ...", which is just too obvious to repeat. The paragraphed text is also much much shorter than for an article, which means that the repetition looms larger. I suggest we (informally) emphasise the need to get straight into the meat of the matter in lists, to extend and enhance the title; engaging readers from the outset is very important. TONY (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) There is no problem with WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD#Bold title also says "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". I'd argue that "List of National Parks of Canada" is simply a descriptive title and so would be perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD if it did not appear verbatim. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Struway. Then perhaps there's a way of gently mentioning this in the FL criteria; will think it through. TONY (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTM

I see that there is going to be a FLD. As many of you know, I have been running an experimental WP:LOTD and WP:LOTM. For a userspace experiment, I would say it is going fairly well. I do hope someday that WP:FLs appear on the main page and hopefully that my procedure is seriously considered. I also hope that the creation of a director does not impinge upon my experiment. I.E., I hope this Directorate does not try to overshadow my attempt with something that can be described as official solely because the director has blessed it. As most of you know, I pop in on occaission at WP:FLC, but my contributions have been mostly in other areas of the project over the last few months aside from running LOTD/LOTM. Can someone explain what this all means for my experiment in its current form. I probably intend to re-propose it formally in December with one full year of results. How will having an FLD affect that prospect?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I think that comment explains all that is wrong with your "experiment". I also hope that the creation of a director does not impinge upon my experiment. I am sorry if developments here seem to clash with your schedule. Woody (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I, uhm... Not to be rude, Tony, but you'd probably get a lot better reception for your various ideas if you could be a bit less self-focused in your approach. --erachima talk 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I should have expected my most fierce WP:FL critic/combatant (along with Scorpion) Woody to chime in with the negative. He clearly maintains his position near the top of the list of people who have the least respect for my contributions to the project. My point is that there is just no mention of FL going to the main page, which a FLD would be involved in I presume. Is the purpose to start anointing things as LOTDs or is it to streamline the WP:FLC process? All talk is about streamlining the FLC process. I am just wondering if this is a backdoor attempt to coalesce wiki-authority for a main page drive. Clearly, in the past support for the main page has been so fragmented between the dictatorial WP:TFA process, the first in line WP:POTD process, and my elective process that this proposal could be an attempt to get around the dispersed support. I am just catching up on this issue because I have not been watching proceedings. I just want a quick and dirty on whether this is mostly to streamline the FLC process or for other purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the previous comments were a little harsh, I'm sure you meant well by your incury, and I actually think its great that you've started this little experiment and had the determination to keep it going. As far as I can tell, the FL director won't be the judge jury and executioner in all things FL, he/she will just be the one who closes FLCs. Otherwise, for any other FL debates or issues, such as the FLD/FLM, they'd act as just another voice in the community, albeit a voice that everyone knows that they know what they're talking about. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Did you read everything on this page? I have not seen one mention of LOTD or anything like this. This is to better WP:FLC and streamline that process. Secondly, the director does not have the authority to place anything on the main page, that would be the community's decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be forthright and say that I can't quite see the quality in many FLs that would be necessary to argue for the sacrificing of more than the occasional FA slot there. TONY (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I have never proposed to subsititute FLs for FAs in TFA, but that is not what this debate is about. I will propose a reconsideration in December. Right now, I ma trying to understand the role of the FLD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DISCOG

Just to let everyone know, as part of the ongoing effort to get WP:DISCOG up and running, I've written up my proposal for a discography style guidline, which can be found at MOS:DISCOG. I mention it here since a lot of the FL discogs past and present will potentially be affected by the guideline, since my goal was to make more stringent requirements for FL discogs. Nearly all FL discogs (including the 4 or 5 that I've seen through to FL) aren't 100% compliant with my proposal, to varying degrees of necessary work. I'd like to eventually cleanup all of the current FL discogs, ideally with this or any other WP:DISCOG style guidlines in mind, so any decisions made with my proposal will most likely affect alot of featured lists. So, please take a look and make any comments you might have on the guideline's talk page. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul of FL criteria (and instructions)

Dear colleagues

I've re-started the process here. The input of reviewers and nominators would be valued. TONY (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cascade of "corporate acquisition" lists

No idea why, but there are an awful lot of them. I've looked at two, and found the leads and other aspects to be unsatisfactory. It would be better to nominate them at a more measured pace while making them more useful and informative. TONY (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can slap the bracelets on me. Although, they were submitted three weeks ago and I have done a lot of good since then (in other departments). Plus, I don't see any evidence that says I wouldn't response to any concerns brought up with them. Gary King (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure; I think it's a very interesting and pertinent phenomenon, and we have a chance to angle these lists in a way that adds significant value to the related articles. Keen to see whether one or two can be "lifted" as models. Doesn't need to be a huge lead, but a succinct one packed with engaging information. Those references might be a start. TONY (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tony that submitting just one would have been a better strategy. You could then have warned reviewers that you had more in the pipeline, indicating you'd like to help establish a model list first. Multiple submissions usually raise concerns about nominator's ability to address issues, but where the submissions are similar, it also causes problems over where reviewers should focus their comments. Colin°Talk 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, which is why I waited for one of these FLCs to pass first, which I did, then I submitted a few more at a time. Gary King (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence

I'm having a war against these, because it's a great way of turning our readers OFF; the opening sentence is the best chance of engaging readers by extending/enhancing the title. Take this one: "This is a list of people associated with the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada." I've re-arranged it thus as an example.

Does anyone disagree that this practice should be roundly discouraged? It's so easy to fix, and makes the lead dynamic from the start.

BTW, that nomination contains serious problems that deserve more general discussion. Gary, sorry, I just noticed it's yours; I'm not getting at you in particular. TONY (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not disagree. Verbatim copying of the title into the lead has always been a little daft and somewhat boring. The only problem avoiding that will lead to is the inevitable edit warring whereby some editors think an article must have a bold introductory sentence (or part of) in the lead. But a small price to pay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
From WP:LEAD:

If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface:

A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics can be shown as a curve, representing the …

This avoids needlessly awkward phrasing, repeated words, and allows for direct links to the general topics ("The electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker are a dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics").

Its always nice to have policy on your side. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but if everyone knew the policy and complied with it, we wouldn't be in this trouble would we?! But yes, redirect to policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've always regarded that particular of policy as ripe for review because it's so little understood. I'm entirely with Tony on this one. It leads to stultifying opening sentences like "The Battle of Foo (1792) was a battle fought at Foo in 1792". --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Struway's comment above:

There is no problem with WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD#Bold title also says "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". I'd argue that "List of National Parks of Canada" is simply a descriptive title and so would be perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD if it did not appear verbatim. cheers, Struway2 (talk)

Another advantage of not duplicating the list title at the start is being able to link the key item to the related article there and then, rather than in a subsequent sentence (typically second occurrence). TONY (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So for the typical "List of XYZ" lists, would we just point to a combination of the above (potentially leading to misunderstanding from those not overly familiar with the MOS) or do we make an addition to the MOS to explicitly describe this scenario? I'm guessing the former... and then reviewers/directors will need to ensure this is enforced correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the twitchy feeling that I'm the local chew toy around these here parts. Gary King (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You and me both since pretty much all episode/chapter lists start with "this is a list of episodes" or "this is a list of chapters" etc. I see nothing wrong with it myself, and rather prefer in character lists to ensure its clear that it is a "list of major characters" and not a list of every pixel to appear 1 second on the screen or in one sentence of a book. *shrug* Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Gary, I was jokingly going to suggest a bot to change them all, except that the task is not sufficiently standard for a bot. But it is a relatively quick and easy way of lifting the effect of the openings, and quite fun to dispose of in a single edit. Rambling Man, do we need to change legislation anywhere? I'd have thought Struway's quote was the solution; and if the main nominators can be persuaded not to do it, other nominators will probably follow suit. TONY (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree the current wording, while possibly a little difficult for some, is fine as is and it's just a case of ramming the message home in every review until the trend subsides... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I still got to wait a few more weeks before I can submit any new lists...! FAC certainly works as a second home, though :) Gary King (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Monthly update of style and policy pages: April 2008

It was a complicated month, so I hope I've captured, as simply as possible, the substantive changes. Please notify any issues on the talk page. TONY (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Script...

I just created a script for "resolved comments". Anyways, you can't (sadly ;() import the script because of the apostrophe (') in my username. Its below, and in the toolbar while editing a page, you will see "Resolved Comments". Highlight the resolved comments and click on it. It's pretty self-explanatory from there. The script is available at User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/comments.js, and all you need to do is copy everything and paste it into your monobook.js. Hope this helps. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ( talk / contribs) 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The current form gives rise to some concerns on my end.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm stupid (or at least, utterly lost in the world of computerese), but when I tried it I couldn't figure out how to make my name appear after 'resolved comments from'. All I get is three tildas. I agree with Sandy's comments at FAC talk about the date/time stamp. That would be useful. Marrio (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's currently set up so you have to type in a username (meaning, the person closing the FAC or FLC can't be sure who added the cap); to me, it's a complete non-starter if it doens't have a sig and timestamp, and I oppose its use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Marrio, Milk changed it so that it enters the user's signature automatically, but it didn't seem to work. I reverted back so you need to enter a username with a 'user' parameter. Gary King (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Director?

Am I missing something here, or have the directors started doing whatever they're supposed to be doing? When will they resume their duties? And what are their duties? Noble Story (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Their duties are to promote or fail FLC nominations. It begins immediately, I believe. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put something in the main FL page about it? Noble Story (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, quite so, immediately. Since Scorpion and The Rambling Man are now the directors (and the two others responsible for demotions), others should not be promoting or archiving ... like, from now. I'm going to make some emergency changes to the instructions. Please review them. TONY (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made some quick changes to the instructions to legitimise the existence and role of the directors. There's a red link I don't know how to fix, and I've made a few assumptions on the basis of Template:FAC-instructions. I haven't dealt with the demotions process and the two users who will do that—needs thought and possibly reference to the FAR/C instructions.
  • In the meantime, the most urgent issue is for people to give their opinions about whether the 10-day rule needs to be dumped (since we have directors to do that now), and whether they might be entrusted with the calling of overall judgements as to consensus without the encumbrance of the rule about four minimum votes. I left that stuff in there, but I firmly believe it would be best to allow the directors the lattitude; those rules seem to be more suitable when anyone can archive or promote. PS There were lots of mentions of "articles"; I've them changed to "lists". TONY (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the four support minimum rule is officially abolished (that being said, while I will promote lists with less than than, I probably will try and wait for four supports). There is no consensus on the 10 day rule, so lets revisit the issue in a month or so. -- Scorpion0422 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate here, with no or minimal commentary. Discussion please below the consensus area.

SUPPORT abolition of four "Support" votes as a minimum for consensus.

OPPOSE abolition of four "Support" votes as a minimum for consensus.

__________________________________________________

SUPPORT abolition of the 10-day rule for removal from the list where consensus is "unclear".

OPPOSE abolition of the 10-day rule for removal from the list where consensus is "unclear".

__________________________________________________

Comments, if any

  • (4 support votes) If there is no need for support votes, then I feel that belittles community input. I know that vote-stacking can happen, which is why four votes isn't always sufficicent for FL status. However, if a list is not good enough, then it won't get the support votes. Hence lack of support votes is a clear sign the community doesn't feel the list is good enough. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is feeling belittled at having directors? Seemed to be a popular decision. Vote-stacking is always a risk, and now our disinterested directors are there to sort out that aspect; they should not be hampered by an arbitrary requirement, and should be allowed to get on with the job (see the massive vote of confidence in them on the election page?). In any case, "supports" are typically devoid of commentary or analysis—you wonder about them often. The FAC process has now become oriented towards the resolution of criticisms; supports are taken into consideration, but are not weighted as heavily. And a good thing it is, too, IMO. TONY (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I partially agree with both of you. While I would not outright oppose getting rid of the four support minimum, I believe it is useful in making sure enough people see the page. -- Scorpion0422 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the idea that it doesn't need to be explicit now we have directors. Dropping it might help the directors if/when they choose not to promote a list that has reached the threshold but has yet to garner the criticism it deserves. Let's be quite clear that the director isn't able to promote a list that hasn't got consensus (he can't make up the numbers) and four support = three independent reviewers supporting. Having only two supporting reviewers isn't exactly a show of confidence. What I'm saying is that IMO the new wording (taken from FAC) isn't any weaker than the old. Colin°Talk 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support retention of the 4-support-vote rule because it ensures that a list will have been reviewed by enough different sets of eyes to validate its quality. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (10 day rule) What's the rush? If a list is good enough, then an extra few days doesn't hurt it. If it's not quite good enough, then there should be time for reviewers to come along and make suggestions (or carry out improvements themselves). If the list is now way near good enough (but consensus is uncertain), then it allows time for objections to be raised. There are no deadlines to get WP "good enough" - we have all the time in the world. (Btw, I'm glad that these issues are being raised. Talking is always good). Tompw (talk) (review) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If the directors determine that there is consensus after eight rather than 10 days, and there's a flood of nominations, it's in everyone's interests to get the house-cleaning done. No one likes a huge backlog—neither reviewers nor nominators. It won't happen often, but the directors should again be given some lattitude: we've put our trust in them. We, on the other hand, should be reviewing and nominating. Let's assume that the process will be clean from the start. It works well enough elsewhere. TONY (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think for now we should leave things the way they are and let Rambling Man and I get a feel for things first. The four support rule doesn't matter to me, but I do think there should be a mimum period up so that we can ensure that enough people see it. You have to remember that this is not the FA process in that it will never have as much participation, so a minumum amount of time does help things out. Let's focus on changing the criteria, and restart this disucssion in June or July. -- Scorpion0422 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm definitely in favour of removing the four-support rule. Since I'm going to (somehow) ensure that lists get to FLC via PR then the 10 day rule can, in my opinion, stay for a while, but I'm hoping we can remove it altogether and place the responsibility of the closure timing with the directors. Otherwise a 'bot could do the job... I tend to side with Scorpion in so far as we need to keep some level of consistency with FLC right now until the criteria have been agreed. Let's revisit this in a month's time... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Also I need to clarify that the ten-day limit may result in a possible backlog (as we have now) but it also allows for additional comment from folks who aren't 24/7 Wikipedians. I think the amalgamated concept (i.e. min 4 supports after min 10 days = pass) is wrong but I'm happy, for now, to keep nominations open for 10 days, regardless of support. But this is something I'm more than prepared to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Em, "min 4 supports after min 10 days = pass" was never the rule. It was "consensus to promote + min 4 supports..." Colin°Talk 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Again I think the new wording (from FAC) is fine. Actually the old wording wasn't "10 days where consensus is unclear" but was 10 days minimum for all lists. I'd be worried if the directors promoted a list after two days as that would disenfranchise those reviewers who aren't there every day. But I don't think the directors would do that so why legislate. Colin°Talk 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I think the abolition of the 10-day rule for removal from the list where consensus is "unclear" statement above should be changed to abolition of the 10-day rule for promotion of the list where consensus is "clear". Right now, I don't understand why we support/oppose a rule that has never been here in the first place. I oppose the abolition of the 10-day rule for promotion of the list where consensus is "clear", though.--Crzycheetah 23:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've struck through the erroneous text; thanks for pointing this out. Please re-examine your vote there. TONY (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the lists being removed/archived in less than 10 days as long as those lists are far from meeting the criteria. At the same time, I oppose abolishing the 10-day rule for promotions, meaning the directors have to wait at least 10 days before deciding to promote any list. --Crzycheetah 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The dangerous things about the four-support minimum are that it (1) shifts the process towards a voting rather than a consensus culture; (2) encourages drive-by "Support"s; and (3) discounts the role of opposes that are resolved, where a reviewer fails to return to strike through and write "Support" (common)—a far more reliable guide than a drive-by "Support". This is a major reason we now have directors. The notion that this is some guarantee of sufficient reviewing is far from the mark.
  • Retaining the 10-day minimum will handicap the directors' ability to manage the size of the list by removing nominations that are clearly promotable or archivable before 10 days are up—especially the former. It is more appropriate when there are no directors. TONY (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying that the 4-support minimum should be retained is not the same as saying that support from just 4 people is sufficient. Directors should have latitude to determine whether a list has received sufficient review, but the requirement for a minimum of 4 supporters provides a baseline criterion to help avoid situations in which a list is promoted without being reviewed from multiple perspectives. --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Tony, why are you so worried about the size of the list of nominations? Why should directors promote/archive a nomination just for the sake of decreasing the size of the WP:FLC? Again, we need to give 10 days at least, so that any nominated list gets enough comments/suggestions. I am more worried about the quality of lists than the size of WP:FLC.--Crzycheetah 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Because a large list is a disincentive for attracting and keeping reviewers (drop-in-the-ocean syndrome); it's also harder for the directors to keep abreast of. TONY (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Right now, there are 31 nominations that are here for 10 days at most. I believe that's a reasonable number. The reason why there are 58 nominations altogether is the lack of activity of our directors.--Crzycheetah 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Voting has slowed to a trickle, and it's clear at least to me that the abolition of the four-support rule has sufficient support to proceed in the short-term, while the 10-day minimum does not. Therefore, does anyone object if the four-support rule is removed on, say, Sunday? TONY (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No objection from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you want to close the four-support poll, then you also have to close the 10-day-rule poll.--Crzycheetah 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal (4) for new FL criteria: INPUT REQUESTED

Everyone, especially the directors, can you please take a look at Revised proposal (4) HERE? After lots of debate, it seems to be settling onto this one, so your input/agreement/objections would be appreciated.

It would be nice to settle the matter soon, since we have now appointed the directors; whatever we post up there to replace the current criteria, it's not set in stone, and of course is subject to further debate whenever someone wishes. TONY (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, apologies for the delay in my input. It's there now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Rambles. We seem to be gradually approaching consensus on Version 4 (amended bit by bit). I've proposed that Sunday be the day of implementation, so please go to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Revised_proposal_.284.29 if you object to that time-line or have comments/suggestions on the proposed text. TONY (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick FLC question

Im not sure best place to ask this question (I did not see it addressed in the featrued list criteria list). When listing multiple items primarily from the same source. Do you need to cite each item in the list, or is citing an intro paragraph stating where it all comes from sufficient? An example is V speeds, which I am working on cleaning up. Most of the speeds are defined in federal regulations. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For the table contents, you can add a general reference list, similar to what is done with episode lists (such as List of Meerkat Manor episodes). Everything that isn't a summation in the lead though, should be cited with inline speeds. Collectonian (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much! If I have any other questions about featured lists, do you have a problem if I come directly to your talk page? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, always happy to help :) Collectonian (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As for running prose, there needs to be a balance between citing every single citable statement and the clutter that involves, and undesirable imprecision in connecting claims with sources. In general, I'd say use the minimal density of citation references that maintains reasonable precision. (In prose, you may be able to get away with one ref at the end of several statements, if it's not unclear. It partly depends on the context.) TONY (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

List vs. article again

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Featured list to featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To expand, User:Raul654 has made a bold suggestion that FAC "absorbs" FLC. Worthwhile discussion ensuing, I suspect, along with a lot of forehead slapping and "Why didn't I think of that?"'s. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think of that because it's a bad idea. TONY (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New criteria

We now have newly reworded criteria. The change was made by Tony1 after a couple of weeks of discussion here. -- Scorpion0422 12:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Scorpion, I should have posted. I've even test-driven them in a review—smooth steering; strong brakes; punchy sound-system. TONY (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia during the discussions, although I'm happy for the criteria to be as they are in their new state, except for including the word "colour". I've seen plenty of lists which over-use colours just to make them look pretty, and it seems a bit BEANSY to mention it in the criteria. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Input requested from those with much more experience as FL reviewers than I have. BTW, my pet hate is where columns are not tweaked for optimal width. Even though they stretch and contract with the size of one's window, it's best to minimise the distortion (unnecessarily wide or narrow columns), don't you think. Hate those dates that wrap over two lines in squidgy little boxes where there's spare horizonantal room in other columns. Not worth writing into the criteria, but I think it's actionable under at least one of the new criteria. TONY (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like more of a technical problem, unless you can give a specific example that says otherwise? Gary King (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden comments

I just commented on a list whose proposer I thought to be Gary King - until I started editing and saw his hidden comments. I now notice he has added comments to several lists this way. Is there some useful function to this "hiding"? I was about to strip the code out but thought I would ask first. Rmhermen (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They're very useful in pinpointing the locations of issues for the primary authors to address. TONY (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally comments are hidden once the commenter feels they have been addressed. It helps make FLCs easier to read and keeps them shorter. -- Scorpion0422 05:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You can use {{hide}} to perform this function. Gary King (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have similar problems specifically with Gary King's "hidden" boxes. Gary, I'd like you to use a "bg1" parameter to add a the background-color for the heading of your hidden box because, right now, your box' background color is the same as the color of FLC and it's very confusing.--Crzycheetah 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay done Gary King (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, Gary, you don't really need to cap a one or two sentence comment. Caps are meant to keep lengthy conversations or comments neat. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I get bugged to do something about my comments so I just 'close' them. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You can just strike them out, especially if it's only one or two sentences. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)