Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/prep

Purpose

This page is used to collate comments against the blurbs on the mainpage. Be open, honest, helpful and do whatever we need to do to make sure we're presenting WP:FL in the best possible way. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cuba WHS

"Cuba's inclusions include " not keen on "inclusions include"... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Copyedits of most of these blurbs will no doubt be needed (especially the ones I've had anything to do with), and the most recent three may need trimming to match the lengths of earlier ones. —WFC— 15:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually about to ask about what the recommended character limit was. Is it ~1000 characters? Nomader ^(Talk) 15:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

~1000 seems to be the generally accepted target, with the caveat is that it is based on a reasonable guess more than anything else. —WFC— 15:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Donkey Kong?

Lest we misconstrue that Donkey Kong is a featured article rather than the game series being a list, I think there should be a relink: Donkey Kong is a video game series.... — KV5 • Talk • 15:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We link to the list, not necessarily the parent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ACCESS

We are going to make sure that all lists meet the most current WP:ACCESS standards before hitting the main page, right? — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly are. However, as part of the proposal, this is an assurance we'll give rather than stress too much that the lists we're giving as examples currently meet that guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course. — KV5 • Talk • 16:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Character limit

It looks like around 1,000 characters (including spaces, I assume) is being recommended, and I think that's about right, if we assume that the associated image is about 180px in its largest dimension and the text doesn't wrap around it. I believe that will give an aesthetic that will probably match whatever the Featured Pictures has in the pane next to it. I've made a few mock-ups to see the effect of (1) wrapping text or not; (2) having an adjacent FP that is portrait or landscape; and (3) placing our image left or right. I invite you to view the following which show some of the variations:

• User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo
• User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo1
• User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo2
• User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo3
• User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Dickin Medal

Remembering that the text/image balance changes as your browser width changes, if you alter the width of your browser window you can get an idea of what happens at lower resolutions. Although it depends on what is in the Featured Picture pane, I think that less text is not a disadvantage, so my feeling is that there's no need to try to pad blurbs up to the limit. But I'd be interested in hearing what others think about that, as aesthetic tastes differ. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly this is more the fault of FP, but any potential image wrap issue with either lists or pictures needs to be dealt with before we take this to Talk:Main page. We need to guard against anything that has the potential to de-rail the proposal. Given the nature of Wikipedia, aesthetic issues with examples have the ability to do that. —WFC— 05:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can do this outside of checking the blurb "works" on a case-by-case basis. Unless there's something someone else knows that I don't (which is eminently likely!) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we use an actual FP example, rather than the Giano comedy? Much as I'm a fan of (the late) Lady Catherine's life and mourn her passing as much as the next man, the blurb is unrealistically long compared to the average FP, I'm sure. Bencherlite^Talk 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm always a bit wary about reusing text from someone I don't know, as I'm never sure that I get the attribution right, while I have no such scruples when stealing from one of Giano's deceased relatives. Nevertheless, I take your point and would like to update my mock-ups to something more realistic before we hit the Main page. Could anyone suggest a couple of Featured Pictures (portrait & landscape) that I could re-use, please? And can anyone confirm that a note on sourcing on the Talk page is sufficient attribution (if not, what should I be doing)? P.S. I put in a large amount of blurb to represent the worst-case scenario. You don't get the same extreme effects on narrow windows with a short blurb, but I don't think we can count on FP text always being short. Maybe we should be asking the FP folks what their maximum text size is? --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

As it looks like we're getting close to making the proposal, I've adapted a couple of recent Featured Pictures + blurb and transcluded them into each of the mock-ups above, to replace Lady Catherine, and just guessed at the attribution. It should give some idea of how "heavy" 1,000 characters in the right-hand pane is, and how it looks if we wrap our text around our image (not good, imho). --RexxS (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How strict is the 1000 character limit and does it include spaces? bamse (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Right now I definitely prefer User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Dickin Medal. That said, I wish we could have a bit of a wider space for the FLs... but I'm not too nit picky. The front page is the front page. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Q&A

I've started this section in order to brainstorm potential objections to this proposal, so that we are able to address them in a united way when this proposal hits the main page. I think the best way to structure this is to have the conversation directly below each bullet point, geared towards producing a strong counter-argument or reassurance to each concern. I've added a few below off the top of my head, and encourage others to do the same. —WFC— 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured Lists is dominated by popular culture. While this selection is impressive, how can we be sure it'll be so diverse if it reaches the main page? —WFC— 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Just take a look at WP:FL. We have nearly 2,000 lists in categories from art & architecture to video games, via food & drink, media and law. Lists at our disposal cover a wide range of diverse topics, this selection is, well, just that, a selection. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)#
  • Note that TFA and Raul654 get the same complaints, especially "too many video games" and "not enough women". The more that we can avoid giving ammunition to our critics, the better! Bencherlite^Talk 12:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well get blurb-writing dude! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are some pretty awful featured lists around, such as [[Link to a list that's nowhere near 2011 standards|this one]]. —WFC— 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's why we have a very active WP:FLRC process. Moreover, since the FL standards were overhauled (can't remember when, we'll need to dig that out) we expect much more from our featured lists than just an opening sentence of "This is a list of gizmos"; recently-promoted lists are well referenced, accessible, engaging, illustrated and we certainly would not allow sub-standard lists onto the main page. As we are proposing only to feature once a week on the main page, we will also have a queue of candidates which will be checked for quality by the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    • April 2009 was the first overhaul, the 3b change to limit the scope to SA-lists was changed in August 2010. Honestly, the criteria have been consistently evolving - as well they should. — KV5 • Talk • 12:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are issues with (list(s) from the selection), such as... —WFC— 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess we'll have to deal with those on a case-by-case basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Accessibility is an issue with a large number of featured lists. —WFC— 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think accessibility is less of an issue in recently-promoted FLs than it is in FAs, (but we might not make that point without foundation!), but in any case, see my answer two above. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with TRM, FL's recent track record on accessibility is very impressive – and that's considering the list writers are constantly doing a balancing act between ACCESS and FLC 5a (visual appeal), which has no equivalent in the FA process. By that, I don't mean there's a conflict between the two, but that ACCESS imposes certain restrictions, particularly on tables, and the writers now seem to be quite good at working within those limitations. BTW, the best way to answer the potential objection is to persuade Graham87 to have a look at our proposed examples beforehand, and see if he finds them accessible and usable. That sort of 'real' evidence would be worth having. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Lists are lightweight compared to articles. Why do they deserve a place on the main page? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer. These are the articles, pictures, and other contributions that showcase the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Wikipedia. All featured content undergoes a thorough review process to ensure that it meets the highest standards and can serve as an example of our end goals." BTW, where does the blurb for the FL section here: Portal:Featured content come from? --RexxS (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered...

Maybe a little out of context, but a couple of months ago, Jimbo said list articles were "very often lame" and I disagreed. Not saying this is the sole reason to get our finest FLs onto the main page, but .... just sayin'... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a great reason. And you deserve heaps of barnstars for that response. — KV5 • Talk • 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

And a semi-permanent spot on my userpage list of great quotes. — KV5 • Talk • 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how prevalant such a viewpoint really is. I think I'll put a question about this in the Q&A. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo said that in a ridiculous context ("I don't want this list to be written, I will therefore criticise lists en-masse and use that as the primary reason not to write this one") despite the fact that there were numerous stronger, policy-based reasons not to write that one. To be fair to him, his follow-up post was more measured (we have some great lists, but a lot of lame ones), and that's more an inditement on our deletion processes than anything else. —WFC— 08:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was curious to see what his follow-up was, and in fact it really wasn't that measured at all. "That it is possible to have great list articles doesn't change the fact that very often, they are lame" [1]. Thanks, Jimbo. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't be a popular view, but in my opinion he's right. The fact that (most) featured lists and those modelled on featured lists are great doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of shockers lying around in our unaudited content. The thing he neglected to say was that the problem for lists is less than that for articles (particularly BLPs). An opinion I suspect that even some of the FAC directors share. —WFC— 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking blurb size

Hi Rambling Man - I'm working on the blurb for Bamse's list and wondered if we have a tool to check the size. Dr. Pda's prose size script doesn't tell me the character count & I don't feel like manually counting. Any suggestions? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What I did was copy into Word or another word processor and use its utility - prosesize unfortunately won't work in userspace. — KV5 • Talk • 22:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately don't currently have word on this machine, but I was afraid that would be the answer. I think I can estimate closely enough. Thanks for the speedy response. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit late, sorry, but User:Bamse/List of National Treasures (ancient documents)#main page Blurb currently has 1053 characters (excluding spaces) or 1241 characters (including spaces). If you need the counts, just ding a few of us with a link and we can have a race to see who can give you the answer first. Prizes available for the most prolific word-counter by the end of the preparation phase :) --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Nice. — KV5 • Talk • 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's here in my sandbox. Might need additional links and stuff, am waiting to hear from Bamse, but I've brought it down a lot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Upper version has 1052/1240 chars ex-/in-cluding spaces. Lower version has 908/1067 chars ex-/in-cluding spaces. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Sorry to make you go to all that trouble - planning to use the lower version if Bamse likes it. Should be fine now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bamse liked it and Truthkeeper88's new (and much improved) version is now present here. bamse (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• This 1241 character limit is in display mode, not edit mode, yes? That is, no syntax, etc? Tony (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

C-e

I've been through them; a few are shorter now by perhaps a line. Slightly overlinked (better to focus readers on fewer links, especially where they contain links to next-door items anyway). Is there a rule restricting the blurb to a single para? If not, I think it could easily be done in the two examples that are currently split into two paras. They look lovely. Tony (talk)

WP:TFAR instructions say blurbs ought to be one paragraph, so it might make sense to follow that. Bencherlite^Talk 07:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I responded (diff) to the comments you left in the copyedit. I felt that "designed" implied the people who ported the game had originally created the idea, so instead I changed "developers" to "companies" to avoid the redundancy. Thanks for the copyedit. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits Tony. They're appreciated! —WFC— 08:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Butter-finger glitches, sorry. The library "had" been going since ?1300s. But doesn't Oxford still have a library? Sounds like it no longer has one. Tony (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomader: companies ... much better. Tony (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On the Bodleian front, I can see the argument for "has had" as well as "had had": I think I prefer "had had" on the basis that the Bod was effectively a new library (as the lead says, "In the words of one history of the university, 'as a public institution, the Library had ceased to function.'") Bencherlite^Talk 12:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Since the FS proposal is scheduled to conclude tonight, I thought wise we start work on our own proposal wording. I see no reason why the initial portion of the proposal should differ too much from that used by the FS crew. Of course, we have specific issues we think we need to address, and also the various blurbs we have prepared to demonstrate the diversity of the project, so that will be incoporated as well. As, once again, I am pressed for time, I would appreciate some assistance in knocking up a set of words (and pictures if required) in the "Proposal" section of my user page. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless the interests of FLs and FSs on the main page are rather different, a joint approach to the authorities that be does have advantages. Just a suggestion. Tony (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

TRM did when the FS proposal first came up, but was asked to delay, to ensure that the sounds proposal wasn't undermined. I'm glad that happened, as the time to prepare has done our case the world of good. For what it's worth, we have been assured that code changes to the main page for sounds will be made with lists in mind. —WFC— 13:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think the requirements are vastly different but Adam suggested waiting until FS got the green light, because without it, the FL proposal was dead in the water (i.e. no coding, no likelihood of community consensus for changing the main page etc). The FS proposal will close later today in any case, so I think we'll be too late to "join in" as it were, I suspect we'll just have to hang on the tail of it while there's still some community interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

When it goes live, I'll know about it, as I have the main page watchlisted. I'll do my best to make sure the the FS crew shows appropriate thankfulness for your cooperation in staging these separately, I think it improved the chances for both of the proposals. If you tell me where you're looking to put the FLs, I'll generate a mock up for you, like the one I did for FS. Also, I strongly advise that you flaunt those pre-prepared FLs on the connected userpage, they are impressive. "A sample of what we intend on placing there" or some such related wording. Thanks again, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. if you could temporarily change the background color of one of the mock ups on the other page from blue to the purple that is currently used in Featured Pictures on the main page, it would make it much easier for me to do the muck up. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to do that here but not sure if that's what you meant? Either way, let me know! And thanks for you help Sven! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

See #Character limit above, if there's anything there you can use. --RexxS (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this page could be modeled after wp:TFAR. Nergaal (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not really sure if I want it to be though. What I think would be best would be something similar to the proposal WFC wrote up much earlier at WT:FLC here (to clarify: I'm not talking about the DYK blurbs underneath the list selected in his proposal, but the selection process he outlined). As the FL will only be appearing once every week, I think it'd be pretty cool if we could make sure all types of FLs are featured at a regular interval. To quote his proposal, the rotation would go along the lines of:

"1. Arts 2. Engineering and technology 3. Geography and places 4. Everyday life 5. History 6. Language and linguistics 7. Arts 8. Maths/natural sciences 9. Philosophy and religion 10. Everyday life 11. Social sciences and society 12. Underrepresented sub-topics 13. ???"

The category could be set up at the top of the page, and then requests from that category of article would be allowed. In the end, FL directors could choose which article they prefer based on the comments from editors in the process, and the list would be selected, or the directors could randomly choose one list of their choice from the section. Either way, this way there would be equal representation for all kinds of lists, while allowing users input into the process. That said, this is getting waaaay ahead of ourselves here. We need to make sure that this proposal gets off the ground at Talk:Main page, and I'd much rather have the first few weeks be based off of the blurbs we've prepared User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates. We can discuss long term specifics later. Nomader ^(Talk) 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mock up

It's full size if you click on it, but I recommend keeping it at 500px in the thumb when you stick it on Talk:Main Page

Looks damn good if I may say so myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks fantastic, great work Sven! I was under the impression we'd be putting it on the right side much like WP:FS had been doing, but I really prefer it on the left. Great job. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I had too, although I guess it's a relatively minor detail. If you're alongside a text-dominated section, it's probably a better idea to go on the right, as you have a little more creative freedom over image alignment and size. Great work Sven! —WFC— 05:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It can be done either way, technically speaking. The reason I chose the left side is because FL would have more text, and thus need more space, than FP would. Today's FP is actually unusually wordy. Either way, either Adam and X!, who are teaming up to code the changes, would have to weigh in.

If the aesthetics become a problem, I have two other ideas, one of which would create more waves than the other. One idea would be to do two horizontal rectangles at 100% width, one on top of the other, with FS on top and the larger FL on the bottom, for balancing reasons (trust me it would look lopsided if we did it with FL on top.) The other idea would be to drop sounds for one day and have the FL on the left and FS on the right. While FS wouldn't lose out in the number of pictures they get to run, they might object to the exposure loss. This option, however, allows for two items on one column where they fit best. 'Adam and X! would have to weigh in on those too, options BTW. Either way these are only contingencies at this point. Both the FS and FL proposals will have concluded with voting by the time that the coding is ready anyways.

Finally please note that FS's voting period ends at 8:00 PM UTC (3:00 PM EST) and I won't be around to close it, someone else (who hasn't voted, if possible) would close it and you would be able to place your proposal in once it's closed. Good luck! Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

However, this would be asking FP to take the right-hand slot on Wednesdays, so you may get resistance from folks who like to see the same thing in the same place. You've chosen a featured pic which has about the smallest area of any FP for ages. There are some featured pics which took up far more space on the main page (e.g. Template:POTD protected/2011-02-01), so it may not be possible to automatically assume that FL needs more space. You've also made the assumption that the FP folks will be happy with changing to a text-wrapped style in place of the two column style that they use now. Have we checked with FP that they would be happy with that change? To help see some of the consequences of this proposal, I've mocked-up the 12 variations below. None of them work perfectly across a range of browser widths, with particular weaknesses at around 1100–1200px wide windows for the cases where we wrap text in both panes.

Pages for position demo

Display Page	FP pane	FP type	FP wrap	FL pane	FL wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 1	Left	Portrait	Wrap	Right	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 2	Left	Portrait	Nowrap	Right	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 3	Left	Portrait	Nowrap	Right	Nowrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 4	Left	Landscape	Wrap	Right	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 5	Left	Landscape	Nowrap	Right	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 6	Left	Landscape	Nowrap	Right	Nowrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 7	Right	Portrait	Wrap	Left	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 8	Right	Portrait	Nowrap	Left	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 9	Right	Portrait	Nowrap	Left	Nowrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 10	Right	Landscape	Wrap	Left	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 11	Right	Landscape	Nowrap	Left	Wrap
User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Bodley's Librarian 12	Right	Landscape	Nowrap	Left	Nowrap

You can, of course, decide to ignore this, and treat it as a problem that can be worked out in the coding, asking that we just get acceptance for the principle of having FL on the main page first. After all the work that has been put in by so many, I'd hate to see the proposal opposed on the grounds that it hasn't been properly thought through and the consequences not taken into account. --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the answer going to be, in part, that the length of the TFL blurb might have to vary according to the length of the FP blurb, and vice versa? At the moment, if there's a particularly long or short TFA blurb, other sections at the top of the page (ITN / DYK / OTD) will be tweaked to compensate, and I would think the same ought to be possible with some co-operation on both sides, albeit perhaps from a starting position that TFL will aim for c.1,000 characters in display mode. Bencherlite^Talk 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would've thought so. I'm glad you've raised these though RexxS: this is exactly the sort of thing that we should have rough FL consensus on in advance, so that we are well positioned to rebutt any opposition along these lines. —WFC— 15:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I've asked the coding maestro User:Adam Cuerden (who would be coding this up for us) to join the discussion. For what it's worth I prefer to see the images (portrait or landscape) in the top left of each pane with the text "wrapped" around it. I also think we would need to be flexible enough to tweak blurbs to tailor for variations, and this should be easily achievable (in fact, mandated) in the week leading up to the inclusion of any given list on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to put FL on the left, by telling the code to switch the boxes if a list is in the offering that day, but I strongly suggest against it, at least as part of the proposal. Once FLs are an established part of the page, coding in the switch on List days could be done as a separate proposal. Trying to do it now could kill your main page chances.

I can, however, give a 50/50 split very easily (instead of the 55/45 of the other columns), since I'll need to be changing width on Panorama days anyway, so feel free to go with that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can Sven possibly create another mock-up for us with the list on the left-hand side? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A possible version of part of the Wednesday Main Page

In case he doesn't spot the request, I've made a version. It's obviously taller as it's 45% FL instead of the previous 55% FL. It's displayed here at half-size (438px) to minimise pixel misalignment --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Female representation

I think we're just about good to go. The only thing I've noticed is that we're lacking in female representation. That shouldn't be a problem insofar as presenting examples goes, but it's something we need to bear in mind from an early stage. It would be the easiest thing in the world to Ctrl + F WP:FL for phrases such as "female" and "women", but here are a few other examples of how we might address that balance.

• List of current sovereign monarchs: There are some great pictures of Queen Elizabeth around, and she is monarch of more sovereign nations than anyone else.
• List of Olympic medalists in badminton: An example of a sport where the women's game is every bit as good.
• List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK) (1990s would work equally well): In both decades the most number ones went to a female group or solo artist, again no lack of suitable images.
• Hugo Award for Best Novel: Arguably the most recognisable book on the list was penned by a female author, and Rowling is certainly not an isolated example in her field.

—WFC— 05:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to look for female inclusion, we could also go with:

• List of India women Test cricketers: obviously a women related article, and recently promoted.
• List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries: fascinating look at how far the US needs to come with regards to female appointments.
• Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance: because the grammy lists are pretty cool.

Either way, we should at least put one of these suggestions up and point out that we have many more female-centered lists if it becomes a point of contention. Nomader ^(Talk) 08:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, if we can knock up one blurb, it should be for the Cabinet Secretaries, as that topic, in general, isn't covered by one of others... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The whole gender imbalance thing is really worth our concern. Can't do more than knock at the margins until the WM chapters start using their local contacts, their ideas, their funds, to start collaborative schemes that will improve the situation. Tony (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but we can at least try to feature what we have in the meantime (personally I'm not sure if WM chapters will ever be able to solve the gender imbalance, but that's a whole different can of worms irrelevant to this discussion). I second TRM about the Cabinet Secretaries, I think it's a fascinating list and it's a great way to showcase FL content about women. Nomader ^(Talk) 09:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with what you say. It's worth trying to make a dent, though. Some time in the future, women and men will be much more equally represented on the whole net. Give it one generation. Tony (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope so, although I feel they'll be much better represented in places that aren't like Wikipedia. Either way, I've put up List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries as a possible mock-up, although the version up there now has 1026 characters (a tad over the ~1000 mark we're going for), and the list itself could probably use a few edits (maybe make the key cleaner and resolve the dead links) to tidy it up. Nothing major though. Nomader ^(Talk) 09:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice job everyone on the article clean-up. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We need to do an audit of the lists on this page, for simple things like DABs, dead links and whole paragraphs that are unreferenced. Obviously for a given week's list the quality checking will go a lot further, but as a starting point we should make sure that we're not shooting this proposal in the foot on really basic things. —WFC— 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

LAST FEW THINGS PLEA!

Okay all, we've made great strides in a short time, but as WFCforLife has said above, we need to just polish the rough edges off the lists whose blurbs we intend to use as examples of what great stuff we have at FL. Soooo, could everyone who's nominated a blurb, please check for, as a minimum:

• Dead links
• DAB links
• Typos
• Reliable sources
• ACCESS conformance where possible (row/col scopes, captions where required, alt text, symbols/colour etc)

When you're done, leave a note on the blurb page and I'll give it a final review (and hopefully RexxS will be able to spend a moment ensuring we've got a degree of ACCESSibility in each of them too). Once we have three greens (copyedited, reviewed, accepted) on as many blurbs as possible in the next day or two, we'll move the proposal to main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help out, I'm aware of three automated tools to check dab links, external links, and alt text:

• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py
• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py
• http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py

The results for Bodley's Librarian and List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders showed no problems on those three areas. --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember the discussion concerning row/col scopes and accessibility but did not follow it to the end. Has it become a requirement and is there a page that tells me how to add those? bamse (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My take on the issue of row/col headers and accessibility is that it's part of MOS:ACCESS (Data tables section), hence part of MOS, hence we'd like it to be part of our very best work. However, some tables would require a major restructuring to fit the guideline in full, and I personally wouldn't insist on it at present for those cases. For a table where it is relatively easy to apply the guidelines, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be done. In the case of List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents), there's a whole "can of worms" about recolouring wikitables and centring vs left-alignment that I really don't want to raise now, but you can meet the first part of MOS:ACCESS#Data tables by adding scope="col" to the column headers. I can do that if you're still not sure – just let me know. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Added (hopefully correctly) scope="col" to the headers. bamse (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@bamse: Yes, you got that exactly right, thanks.

@TRM: The table would strictly use the "Name" as the row header, but those cells have a translation and a transliteration in the cell as well. If I were listening on a screen reader, I really wouldn't want all of that read out to me every time I 'looked' at a data cell. This is a case where the table would need a rethink to be able to mark up useful row headers, and I don't think we should be insisting on that yet. When a lot more editors become aware of the issues and tables are designed ab initio to accommodate ACCESS in full, I'll be happy to push harder for row headers. For now, it's good to see that column headers present no problems in almost every case. --RexxS (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope

To answer TRM without clogging up the display page, scope does work with spans. A user agent should work from the current cell upwards and left, then announce the first 'scoped' cell that it encounters as the column and row headers for that cell. For example, in the table at List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire#Reshadieh class, I would expect the cell containing 'Scrapped on the slipway in 1914' to have "Fatih" as its row header, and "Fate" as its column header. A screen reader ought to be saying "Fatih, Fate, Scrapped on the slipway in 1914" when reading that cell. --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Shortened text versions

Just in case we need to demonstrate a smaller footprint on the Main page (if someone asks what we do if Featured Picture is small), I've created a "short text" version of Diving Disorders at User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo/Diving disorders 1. I didn't feel comfortable taking an axe to other folks' work, but if anybody else were able to produce a condensed summary – less than 500 characters including spaces – particularly of a candidate with an image in portrait, I can make a mock-up using it. We may have to consider whether we want the "Recently featured:" and "Archives" links within our box at some point, so shorter text versions may be useful then as well. --RexxS (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We certainly need the "more featured lists..." linked at the bottom. And yes, recently featured and archives links will need to be there after week 1... I'll prepare two shorter blurbs for and encourage everyone else to do the same for lists they have nominated that appear here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To keep in all clean and tidy, could shorter versions be placed at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates (short), thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do all of them, just 2-3 to show that we have the ability to be flexible on blurb size. —WFC— 12:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, are we happy with the summaries I've done? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They look very good. Tony (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. —WFC— 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when voting starts so I can support this proposal. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

With a tailwind, it should start this evening (i.e. in about four hours time), so keep a watch on Talk:Main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Rambling Man, I don't know how this will end up working when or if it is implemented, but if you don't mind, I'd like to nominate List of National Parks of the United States for consideration. I'm happy to help with the overall process once it gets started. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I see TRM is tied up with work until late tonight (Thursday), but in the meantime you can always make a candidate mock-up for your list with either a short blurb (less than 500 characters) or a long blurb (up to 1,000 characters) using the current candidates as a template. I'd suggest working it up in your userspace at first, and check over the List of National Parks of the United States for deadlinks, dablinks, alt text, and compliance with the latest recommendations for tables at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables. If we end up compromising by accepting more than one slot per week, we're going to need as many well-worked up lists as we can find, sooner than we think. --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Drop a line here you've done the blurb in your userspace, we'll get a couple of people to do the sort of checks that were done for the lists currently on this page, and then we'll transfer it over. —WFC— 05:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So what's the status of TFL?

Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove blurbs from this page once scheduled for the main page?

Once a blurb has been moved e.g. to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/July 4, 2011, can I suggest that we remove it from here to avoid confusion? That way, we only have copy-edits here of lists that are yet to be selected, avoiding duplication of work. In the rare case of something being pulled from the queues, it could always be reinstated here temporarily. Pending comments, I've removed today's TFL (Bodley's Librarian) from the page and {{hat}}ted the others that have been picked. Bencherlite^Talk 08:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, perfectly reasonable. Pages moved to TFL should be removed once their "daily" TFL/July x 2011 page has been created. Will remove those naughty ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

List of current sovereign monarchs

Probably should have brought this up before, but can we use a different image for this nom? I believe the one to the right might look a bit more...relevant? And thanks to Neelix for getting the nomination accepted! Nightw 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Its an improvement over the current image, if only because of a lack of busy-ness in the background. If relevance is the criteria, we should be making it as obvious as possible that the subject of the photo is a monarch. File:Gates & Qaboos of Oman cropped.jpg would have been absolutely perfect head on. —WFC— TFL notices 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A cleverley cropped version of this might do the trick. —WFC— TFL notices 23:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some images that would've been perfect [2][3] but it's very hard to find free-to-use photos of monarchs. That one of Qaboos bin Said is on a government website—is that public domain? For me, this one of Carl Gustaf just has the whole European backdrop that our readers will no doubt associate with monarchies. Nightw 00:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The one on the government website is in the public domain; "Works of the United States Government and various other governments are excluded from copyright law and may therefore be considered to be in the public domain in their respective countries". My preference would be to go with an image that our readers are unlikely to associate mith monarchies. As an encyclopedia that aims to cover all knowledge relating to all subjects, Wikipedia should avoid stereotypes and not reinforce them. Neelix (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I get what you're saying. Something exotic then perhaps? What about this one? Or even this painting? Nightw 10:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I like your suggestions! The King of Swaziland image would be particularly steoreotype-defying. Any objections? Neelix (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy. —WFC— 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Removed the discussion note. Nightw 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)