Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Revised proposal (4)

OK, here's my rationale in a nutshell:

• I can't overemphasise how these criteria should be short and sweet, crisp and clear; especially, short. In this respect, I think they might serve as a model for other featured criteria—particularly the FA criteria—which are unnecessarily long and complex, IMO.
• There are too many problems in explicitly linking to guidelines and policies (clunky, long list, problematic items in the lists of contents and guidelines too, as I pointed out above). IMO, it's better just to keep to the "requirements for all WP content", as does the lead to the FA criteria. Putting them in Cr 1 so that reviewers may cite that number is redundant, since nominators will need to be told exactly which policy or guideline is at issue, not just "breach of Cr 1". I'm afraid we shouldn't be here unless we know about these universal requirements, at least vaguely, and are able to respond when they're cited. For example, including copyright in the FA criteria has never forced the issue there; they rely totally on the presence of reviewers who care about it and know how to insist. Same with citations/factual accuracy, frankly (but see below, because I've broken my rule and included those—your advice, please ...). Before I finish on this, I don't want users at large to get the idea that our universal requirements are not taken seriously, and somehow need to be stamped out here to remind people. Bad signal, don't you think?
• Red links and blank squares: too-hard basket, as Dweller is saying—in any case, isn't it more flexibly covered under "Visual appeal"?
• Scorpion's query about "practical"—OK, let's retain the existing mention of "dynamic" lists, which seems more objective a distinction.
• I've changed the grammar of the bold subtitles after Colin's objection.
• Because MoS involves lots more than prose, it's in a separate point.
• I'm sorry if I've missed feedback that I should have integrated. The ownership stuff makes it hard to hunt through. PLEASE, sequester further stuff about ownership in a separate section. TONY (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the following comments were made on an earlier draft of #4

It is better than #2 but still misses some of the aspects of a featured list that I think are important, some longstanding, some new. I think we've reached the point where you'd phrase it one way and I'd phrase it another, I'd mention this, you'd ignore that. We desperately need a serious level of participation from reviewers and nominators who are active at FLC. It is only with experience of regular failings or strengths that we can draft some criteria that are helpful.

• I think there is merit in listing our policies and we've gone from "excellent but move to the lead" to "clunky" and dropped altogether. I don't think repeating them sends out the wrong signal. The level of WP experience among FL nominators is generally lower than at FA. It does no harm to remind folk that these are non-negotiable requirements. Failing WP:V is the most common fault I see. So one does wonder if nominators do take them seriously.
• Earlier you suggested dropping links to content policies and guidelines. Perhaps but not for the reasons you give. If some of our guidelines are troublesome, not linking to them won't make them go away.
• "Comprehensiveness" hasn't incorporated the "appear finished" and "more than a bare list" points. I'm trying to come up with new criteria that help raise the standard, so would like those criteria discussed rather than chucked away too quickly.
• I think both you and I liked "if practical" but Scorpion thought it was a loophole. I'd like this debated further as the old text (you restored) of dynamic list is actually worse. The words "dynamic list" require definition and the linked template merely says "an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness" without really giving a reason. The wording at "incomplete list" takes us to a stale wikiproject rather than a guideline. It is all rather circular: "a list may be allowed to be incomplete... if it is an incomplete list". I believe "practical" handles the situations where a list of thousands or millions might be expected; where the list can't be complete since not every instance is documented; where a complete list would be huge and of little practical value; etc. It also incorporates a solution to the Arsenal FLRC. If a nominator can give a practical reason for curtailing the scope, and it is a reasonable one, then why not.
• "Factual accuracy" is actually not a WP requirement. Meeting WP:V is not the same thing as being accurate (correct). So those bold words are at odds with policy. You ask about the need to repeat this policy and not the others. I think FL/FA used to require inline citations more than policy demanded, but perhaps WP:V is no so different now. The "where appropriate" clause still applies and plenty undynamic short lists can be sourced to one or two bulleted references.
• Is there a good reason to drop "and its subpages" from the MoS requirement? You may disagree with some of them, but as long as they remain consensus-agreed guidelines, they count.
• I don't see the need to split "images" from other aspects of visual appeal.
• Lastly, and most importantly. No, the issue of linking is not handled by "visual appeal". I know you have a problem with blue and red text being visually distracting, but the issue of whether to link or not and whether that link should point to something useful (or anything) is far more than just aesthetics. The "linking articles" text is currently our #1 criterion. I won't see that dropped without a fight (well, a discussion that involves significant consensus for change). Here's my take on list-entry linking:
  • If the entry subject has a reasonable chance of a Wikipedia article, it should be a link. This is quite a different requirement from "if the entry subject is notable, it should have a link". Notability is a lower threshold designed to protect articles from deletion. It has little bearing on whether an article stands much chance of existing in the first place. For people in the past, a reasonable test for this is whether they'd have an obituary or not. If you have an obituary, you've got the material to write a short article.
  • Failure on the above is the only reason for making an entry black to avoid it being red. Removing red links merely to pass FL is a sin.
  • A list with too many redlinks isn't "useful". There's that word that Tony thinks doesn't mean much. I think it means a lot and is something worth considering when judging a wiki list. Let's not fall out over it. We have different viewpoints and that's fine. Another reason why I'd love more participants here.
  • Creating lots of stubs so the links are blue won't impress me. I consider that just as bad as a list with lots of redlinks as it still isn't "useful". If I had my way, stublinks would be in the criteria along with redlinks. Remember, we're judging whether the list is useful to a reader now, not whether it is useful to editors trying to build articles round a topic.

OK. If these drafts are to stand any chance of maturing and improving on what we have, we need experienced reviewers and nominators to comment and to offer suggestions and new criteria. Colin°^Talk 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Item 5 seems a bit weak. If the standard for FL is to mean anything, it should be comparable with FA. Are there any FA articles with no in-line citations? Whilst it would be a nonsense to cite every species in List of birds in Canada and the United States to the same source, if you don't have at least some in-lines you end up with something like this, which I at least cannot see as being of the same standard. I'd rather change the end of 5 to complemented by appropriate inline citations. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bit narky and personal in tone, Colin. Have I been narky and personal towards you? I resent it, frankly. There's a lot of you, you, you, in your comments. It's accusatory, and often, you're wrongly ascribing assumptions/believes to me ("You may disagree with some of [the MOS subpages]"—actually, I don't agree with all of the central MOS page, and MOS subpages are part of MOS. There's no need to explicitly mention them, but I have no objection it they are mentioned. "The "linking articles" text is currently our #1 criterion. I won't see that dropped without a fight ..." Well, your version took it out, and I used that as the basis. Who wants to fight? Not me; but you do, apparently.) I spent a lot of time and effort which I find now slightly put down in your constant requests for other people to participate. I'd welcome it, but they can't be forced. There are clearly ownership issues going on here, for which I have no respect. TONY (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, about the tone. The reason "you" and "I" feature in the criticism is because frankly only you and I are making any proposals or significant rationales. If I'm wrong about why you dropped "and its subpages" from MoS then, sorry. You seemed enthusiastic about version 3, which was nice, so I was disappointed that version 4 lost some of what I was trying to add. I should have been more positive towards you about the bits I liked rather than just mention the bits I didn't. I'm not very good at that.

Version 3 still had a requirement for few red links and I hoped that other WP guidelines would cover the need to have links in the first place. Don't interpret "dropped without a fight" strongly. I did rephrase it immediately afterwards. The point is that IMO that's an important characteristic of a featured list and always has been. By removing all mention of links from the criteria, we are telling nominators and reviewers that it is no longer relevant. Why?

I too have spent a lot of time on this but where's the support? I'm not even a regular FL reviewer any longer, and you're mostly FA. So how can we "force" these criteria on the rest if they don't say what they like and what they need. Ownership? No. I didn't write any of the current criteria apart from expanding 1a. And as for version 3, it isn't important. My request for other participants isn't because I hate your version and want someone else to say so. How can two people achieve "community consensus"? If you can find a way of handling links, version 4 is good enough to get my support. Colin°^Talk 09:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't mean red links, I presume? You mean the linking of FLs to related articles? Can you clarify? I don't see that in your Version 3 .... TONY (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because I suspect that a lot of people would rather it be nutted out here among a few, and when there's some kind of agreement, taken to them for supports/opposes/comments. They have wisdom, those people, because a complex proposal becomes just impossible to develop if too many people are involved at the start. I regard these Revised Proposals not as some attempt to elbow others out, but a chance to evolve the wording and provoke comment, even if it's from you alone; but Scorpion and Dweller et al have put in rather smaller comments, and it was those I responded to as well as yours, specifically on red links. I agree with you that red links should be discouraged, but Dweller was very insistent. I think they look horrible, and would prefer to risk a delayed linking of an item if, perchance, an article is created on it without our realising it. I'm quite willing to argue with Dweller about that. The alternative is to write stubs for them, damn it. Now, Colin, can we work together to move this forward? We seem to have a stumbling block about whether the universal criteria should be explicitly linked. I still think not, and that somewhere we might have a checklist for nominators and reviewers (even in the instructions?). But I can't cope with the idea of forcing people to comply with some of those zany "policy" or "semi-policy" pages such as "All the web", which in any case is inconsistent with other guidelines. By explicitly linking to a list in which it appears, we're saying that you need to maximise the linked items in your text: it's a requirement for a FL; at the moment, most folk simply ignore such idiocy on WP. I've tried to have it moved out of policy status, but gave up after enduring a torrent of unpleasantness from its one, dogged guardian. TONY (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this set of criteria is fundamentally sound, and most of my worries are related to minor phrasing issues. (Structure. "It is easy to navigate, including section headings, table sort facilities and annotations where useful"; Images should have "'alt' text", not just "alt"). My main issue is that the criteria do explicitly say something about scope. The scope of a list should be clearly defined and sensible (e.g. you couldn't have "football seasons 1992, 1996, 1999 and 2002", but you could have "football seasons 1992-2002"). Tompw (talk) (review) 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Tom, except that that odd sequence of football seasons would lack notability as a topic, wouldn't it (contravening the policy)? I can't see the need to legislate explicitly to stop stupidity like that. TONY (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of including this phrase: "-in particular, naming conventions, take a neutrality, contain no original research, be verifiability, citations of reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), non-free content and what Wikipedia is not-". That's redundent with "meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content" and can only cause confusion and possibly RfC or ArbCom activity as it looks like an attempt by a handful of contributors to select,classify and prioritize the importance of some content requirements/policies over others. Also the grammar within the phrase is way off ("be verifiability"/"take a neutrality") but I get the feeling I am not allowed to edit/fix what's inside the box? I think it is crucial that more editors with more experience be involved in this discussion or else it should be shut down before we end up with a new FLC which is more dysfunctional than the existing one. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All the content policies are listed apart from Attack pages, which is more a problem at the AfD end of the spectrum than FLC. So, I'm happy we haven't been selective with policy (all or nothing). The few guidelines chosen for mention (citations, reliable sources and non-free content) are the ones that cause most problems for nominators. There's no agenda here. Colin°^Talk 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony has revised version 4 since Tom and I commented, plus the grammar has been fixed since Grant's comment.

• I'm pretty happy with the latest revision. One point: all the bold words are aspects of a list that we review (the non-bold words explain the attributes of a featured list we are looking for). The exception is Styleguides. Could this just be Style? BTW: My watchlist radar detects that The Rambling Man plans to look in. Colin°^Talk 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "Style". TONY (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is a pretty good stab. I'll review it again later today, but it looks like a version I'd support. NB - are we saying in 6, that we could support the promotion of a list with no images at all? --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, 6 doesn't change the current wording, which to me allows the promotion of a nomination that has no images. Has there ever been such a nomination? It would be rare, I suppose. I can imagine that a list could be valuable, nicely written and constructed, etc, and be hard to illustrate, especially if there are problems in justifying the use of non-free images ... But a rare case. TONY (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a requirement. Over at FAC, even 0.999... managed four images, which I think was heroic. I cannot conceive of a topic that could not be illustrated in some manner, and if it did happen, then the Directors can IAR or change the criteria. I'd rather not give wriggle-room for those unwilling to be creative in finding or making appropriate images like Image:999 Perspective.png. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick search turns up List of wealthiest foundations (if one ignores the country flag symbols), Periodic table (large version), List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Lost episodes. That's too many for me to be happy with IAR if you think those lists should remain unadorned. I don't think many of the TV series season episode lists are significantly improved by a (fair use) image of the DVD box set. Colin°^Talk 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can recognise a persuasive argument when I see one. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a requirement for images, it would instantly kill a lot of the episode list FLs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I think I can support it. However, can we also include a basic definition of a list somewhere in the criteria? I've seen several FLCs where such a definition has come in useful. Something along the lines of "A list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's been 2 days and only 5 editors involved in evaluation of Proposal #4 with 95% of the discussion being between Colin and Tony. I suggest the facvt is that there is no community interest in dealing with this issue right now and that it would be counterproductive to implement such an important procedural change based upon such a lack of interest. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr 6, "...formatting, tables, and colour, has images if they..." - it's a personal thing but I'd split this sentence after "colour". While it makes the criterion two sentences, I think it just makes for easier reading and, after all, we need to appeal and attract folks who haven't been to FLC before. I'll add more... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done—two semicolons inserted, so now it's the mechanics of visual presentation; images; and the minimising of red links. Does it work? TONY (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It does for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr 7 "...its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for vandalism reverts..." - do we need to include vandalism as an acceptable cause of article instability? I think that's inherently obvious. WP:FAC doesn't worry about this (as far as I can see) so not sure why FLC should, especially considering (at the moment) FLs don't make mainpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Cr 4 ".. annotations..." - is this clear? I'm not sure what it means... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr 5 "...complies with Wikipedia's styleguides..." a lot of recent discussion with Project style guides versus MOS. I think this needs tightening up. What other styleguides are being referred to here Tony? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've no problem with your 6/7 points. "Annotations" were part of revision 3's #6 where it was the additional material on top of a bare list. Annotations are the dates, nationalities and other little extras that make each entry a bit more informative. Perhaps it doesn't fit so well with #4 Structure. There was talk of making #3 Comprehensiveness cover more than just the completeness of the set. As for #5. Perhaps "It complies with Wikipedia's styleguide, the Manual of Style, and its subpages." works better? Can you clarify what the "project style guides" discussion was about? Colin°^Talk 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Annotations: see what you think now. TONY (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is better, but do you think that clause fits better on the end of 3 (comprehensiveness) than 4 (structure)? Colin°^Talk 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I understand "annotations" but I'm not sure it's clear enough to someone without having this discussion so perhaps expanding that point a little would be of use. I prefer your rephrasing of #5. As for "project style guide" discussions, during my reviews I've bumped into three or four different issues lately:
  • Firstly the WP:DISCOG wikiproject seem to encourage the use of bold titles which are wikilinked in the lead, against WP:MOS.
  • Then I bumped into WP:TROP who have their own templates for thumbnails and a different {{main}} (namely {{hurricane main}}) which have a different style from all the rest of Wikipedia.
  • Thirdly the WP:NFL chaps have a "template" for creating FLs out of lists of seasons, it can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Team seasons list format. It has improved, mainly through persistent nagging at FLC, but still breaches WP:MOS. It is considered as the de facto standard for featured season lists by the project.
  • There are other examples I can't recall from the top of my head at the moment, but hopefully this gives you a flavour of what I meant. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy suggested last week that, like FAC, FLC criteria dispense with explicit mention of WikiProject guidelines. I'm unsure exactly why, but I suspect that it was causing confusion for nominators and reviewers. It may be that participants in the FLC process need to be given greater lattitude WRT WikiProject guidelines—and their inconsistency with MOS, where that is the case. Hmmm ... unsure what to do: I've tried to be less prescriptive by mentioning "styleguides" first, then MoS and its sub-pages in particular. Your thoughts? TONY (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the strength of "complies with" means we should only mention styleguides that have wide consensus approval. AFAIK, those are the ones in the Mos & subpages. Project guidelines that have not gone through that process should not be regarded as a formal guide to which compliance is expected. That doesn't stop reviewers having an opinion on whether it would be better (or not) to conform. I've tweaked the criterion to remove "in particular". Colin°^Talk 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to TRM and Colin for this feedback, which I've at least partially addressed in the wording, I think. Please see above for my comments. TONY (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This is shaping up really well. --Dweller (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, concerned at 5: "It complies with Wikipedia's styleguides: the Manual of Style and its sub-pages." There are lots of styleguides that aren't part of the MoS. Frankly, WP's styleguides are structurally in a huge unwieldy mess. FAC specifies just MoS, by which it means MoS main page and its "sub-pages". ("Sub-pages" is a term that many people who tend to them object to, although I have no qualms). I suggest either "It complies with the Manual of Style and its sub-pages, or something quite different.TONY (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what's the feeling for Wikiproject styleguides which are in direct contravention of the WP:MOS? Mandating the MOS only seems to be the clearest and most objective approach to me. I would prefer the MOS to be lord and master as it removes the problems introduced by project-endorsed variations. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm uncomfortable with WikiProject guidelines contradicting MOS and wouldn't want their unilateral secession to be reflected in an example of our best work. Does anyone have an example or two of these differences? --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, for starters see the three examples I gave above... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, surely you don't expect me to actually read anything you've written? --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, those rascals. Anyway... I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Style now much better, I think. TONY (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Supplementary pages is a more acceptable term for the components of the Manual of Style other than its main page. I have taken the liberty to change it. Waltham, The Duke of 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Item 3 - isn't the "of" of "all of" redundant? (too many "ofs" in this posting as well) Jimfbleak (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I somehow sense that the "of" is a little more formal. TONY (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can we get a sense of when it might be OK to implement the revision (4)? Does anyone object to Sunday? TONY (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't object to Sunday. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The sooner the better.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I've only been a minor contributor to this, but I like the final (?) revision, bring it on. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coloured beans

Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia during the discussions for the new criteria, and I'm not at all opposed to the new ones, 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) 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of basic topics

I notice there do not seem to be any Cat:Basic topic lists currently featured. Is there a reason for this or is it simply that no particular suitable candidates have been put forward? I am wondering whether or not the basic topic lists are by their (taxonomic) nature ineligible for FL. Any insight appreciated. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)