Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Red links

The removal of Indian national cricket captains for having too many redlinks appears to contradict one of the purposes of lists: as a mechanism for identifying articles that need writing. Redlinks are, therefore, no indication of the quality of a list, which needs to be comprehensive irrespective of its subject coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia. —Theo (Talk) 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)

Too many redlinks is a problem. Some redlinks is not. "Featured" means Wikipedia's best. Featured lists have to be useful, and that means linking them to articles that expound the subject in greater detail. If Indian national cricket captains were re-nominated now, it would be shot on sight:) jguk 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)
jguk's points are valid ones. Around two-fifths of the internal wikilinks (primarily in the second half of the list) are redlinks. See Wikipedia:What is a featured list, point #s 2 and 5 for how to improve the list. One of the main uses of a list here at Wikipedia is to thematically collate related articles according to at least one, and usually a few secondary, common elements. The list is laid out well, but the redlinks tend to invalidate a large portion of the usefulness of the list.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)
To amplify: the criterion of "usefulness" includes the requirement that an article has a "large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)". A list composed of redlinks is useful in highlighting areas were our coverage is weak, but not so useful for a reader. On the other hand, tactically delinking entries to avoid red links is also frowned upon. -- ALoan (Talk) 04:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC-8)

[edit] Major changes to featured lists

Where would be the best place to discuss whether a major change to a featured list improved it, or made it worse (possible grounds for demotion), other than the talk page of the list itself? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 07:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC-7)

Quite likely in this page, since there's no review mechanism for FLs as there is for featured articles. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC-7)
I'd think that this page should be named something akin to "Featured List Review," as compared to "Featured Article Review." Thus, if you wished to make a major change you could nominate those list(s) here, without the stigma of "list removal" attached. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC-7)
Featured Articles has a two-step approach to this... WP:FAR and WP:FARC. We could consider a similar concept, but really we don't get so much traffic, making it less necessary. With a one-stop-shop, perhaps FLR would be misleadingly innocent? --Dweller (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Proposed new instructions for FLRC

To do justice to our recent major changes in the FLC process, the revamp of the FLC criteria (which govern all existing FLs as well as candidates), and our appointment of FLRC directors, I propose the following text to replace the existing instructions. I've generally copied the FAR/C instructions, which I think are pretty good, especially in their emphasis on the review/updating process. Feedback is welcome below the box. TONY (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Reviewing featured lists
Shortcuts:
WP:FLR
WP:FLRC

This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are two stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Featured list review (FLR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve lists rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured list criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve lists in various ways, such as updating, formatting, and general copy-editing. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The delegates who act as FLR directors, Dweller and Matthewedwards, determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.

Featured list removal candidate (FLRC)

  • A FL list is never added as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this second stage, participants may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The FLR directors determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by the moving of a FL from review to the removal candidates' list.

Older reviews are stored in the archive. A bot will update the list talk page after the review is closed and moved to archives.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nominating an article for FLR

Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in list content.

  1. Place {{FLR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated list. Write "FLR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
    Note: if an article has already been through the FLR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list review/List of African TV stations → Wikipedia:Featured list review/List of African TV stations/archive1
  2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  3. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the list, specifying the FL criterion/criteria that are at issue. Click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated lists, {{Wikipedia:Featured list review/name of nominated list}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRMessage|Articlename}} to relevant talk pages (insert the article name). Relevant talk pages include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the list stats script), the editor who originally nominated the list for Featured status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the ?List Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, although there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLR page specifying the notifications that have been made.

Feedback below here, please TONY (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

From Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

Before I go into my thoughts on a two-step approach, first let me point out while I remember that the right hand column of the template all relates to Featured article tools, which would need to be changed.

OK, now my thoughts on the overall idea:

I'm not entirely convinced that a two-step approach is necessary here. There are usually (but not always) only three main problems with lists:

1. Lists promoted in the early days of WP:FLC have only one or two sentence lead
2. Not enough citations
3. The list is out-of-date and needs only a few entries to make it in-date.

The nature of articles means that there are usually far more issues that need to be addressed when they are brought to WP:FAR. For lists, I think that it is far easier to address what these "main" issues, and this can be done the way it is now.

In a way the two-step approach works well at FAR, but I also feel that it doesn't. Firstly, there are usually more contributors to an article than a list, so there is probably more people willing to address any issues brought up to FAR than there are at FLRC. When they do come to FLRC I find they are usually from the notified Wikiproject. At the FLC talk page where this discussion was started (Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Updating instructions for FLRC) I proposed that more people should be notified when a list is brought to FLRC other than just the relevant wikiprojects, such as the current main contributors, the original FLC nominator and the FLC commenters, and I see that has been included in the new proposal which is nice. This could help bring more people in to help address issues if the two-step plan goes ahead here.

The problem I see with the FAR is that while it is sitting for 2, 3 or 4 weeks with the issues being addressed, it is still a WP:FA. Then it has another 3 or 4 weeks being !voted on. Now if someone is attempting to write another FA of a similar scope and base it on that one, maybe they might not know that it has problems, and their hard work to make something into Featured status is pointless because it will be shot down at FAC. If there are big issues to be addressed, leaving it for 6–8 weeks as a Featured article while that goes on is pointless. Rather than dragging it out in the hope it will pass the !vote in time, it should be demoted ASAP and once the issues are addressed, brought back to FAC.

Even though there are fewer people who take part in the FLRC process than the FAR, it still doesn't usually take that long for a list's issues to be addressed. I don't think that an initial !vote to "remove" is totally bad.. if the issues given are addressed, then it can easily be stricken and changed to "keep".

With regards to the new instructions, if this were to be passed and implemented then the third point of the FLR step confuses me. The first instruction says that !votes of "keep" or "remove" shouldn't be made, so how would consensus be made if it should be moved to the second stage? Whether or not the nominator's suggestions have been implemented, I'm thinking that the "consensus" would more than likely be solely the nominator's view.

I'm also not sure about the first paragraph of the Nominating an article for FLR section. Regarding the the nominator-must-help-address-the-issues thing, I'm not sure if that is such a good idea. If I brought forward a list from the Wikipedia:Featured lists#Biology and medicine section because it doesn't meet current standards I'd probably be able to address any MOS issues, but I'd have no clue how to address the factual parts. This might make me inclined to not bring it forward at all and instead leave it in the hope that someone else who does have knowledge in the area nominates it. That might not happen for another 6 months or even ever, which would mean a crappy list continues to be Featured with no hope for it to be excellent again. Also, if I see two lists that should be brought here, I don't see why I should have to wait 8 weeks for one nom to be closed, then bring another and wait for another 8 weeks. Assuming they were both removed in the end, that's a 16 week (or 4 month) period to wait for a crappy list to be de-Featured.

So instead of having a two-step approach here, I think the current one-step is, for now at least, the way to go for Lists, although I'm not opposed to some of the new instructions being combined and then introduced.

There is one more thing Tony, and that is that you haven't said why you feel the current process doesn't work here. I'm a little concerned that you might once again be slammed for poking your nose in, so I'm interested to know your views, as I'm sure others will be, and perhaps I might be persuaded to change my mind. Finally, I just wanted to say that your continuing efforts to improve the entire FL project and to put it on a more equal footing (on paper and in people's minds) to the FA process are appreciated. Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Matthew. A few responses:

  1. I've no particular angle on the binary structure (review, than removal candidate). I'm perfectly willing to re-engineer the proposed text in a way that emphasises the review and improvement functions beyond the current text, but dispenses with the formal boundary between them and the second, removal-oriented process. Should I edit the binary structure out of the proposal? I think I'm getting from you a signal that I should; I don't disagree.
IMO, I think so, but others may like to go along with it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The three common issues you raise are indeed serious and not easy to fix. No. 3 looks like the easiest one. Nos. 1 and 2 might be very hard without the content-authors around, or without their cooperation. But I want to add to your list a fourth one, which is now more important given our new Criteria 1 (professional-standard prose) and 2 (engaging lead)—my suspicion is that a good proportion of FLs need therapy in these departments.
  2. "Nominators are encouraged to help in improving their nomination where possible"—does that solve the issue you raised?
Yeah, that sounds less frightening! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. If that Collectonian tries to "slam" me again, I'll slam him straight back. I'm doing this only because I care about featured content processes; not for some kind of egotistical trip (it's a lot of mostly thankless work).
  2. I don't consider that I'm poking my nose in anywhere; that attitude—of some kind of tribal ownership—would contradict one of the pillars of WP. TONY (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually meant the response you got (from me included—sorry ) when you initially raised the issue of changing WP:WIAFL. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of involving myself in whatever debate this is, User:Collectonian is female :) Gary King (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] relatively minor proposed changes to the instructions

Rather than going the full hog with the binary system, as above, I propose that the notion of reviewing and improving/updating FLs be at least mentioned as part of the process. Otherwise, why bother contacting the original authors and wikiprojects? TONY (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can go along with that. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)