Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Task force

Suggestions

This is kind of a work in progress right now, so if anyone has any suggestions for any goals or tasks, feel free to suggest them (or you can just add them to the page if you like). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87/FLSweepNotice – I made this a while ago. We could use it to notify primary contributors of the list in question that it needs improvement. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Foremost, please, please, please don't send a landslide of lists to FLRC. Have a shortlist but use merge proposals as the primary tool to address lists that should be merged and not FLRC unless there's a deadlock on the talk page. Also, I'm going to be expecting you guys to give the FLRC noms a good amount of commentary too ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate irony: [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists compared to the revised criteria

Moved to main page.

Comments

Feel free to add any, but do not remove any without discussion (and please do not leave any comments in the actual list, leave them here). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark of the Year has been resolved, the original poster had his facts wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea, I think we could make it something like Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this IS a good idea. At what point does one of these awards and noms lists become worthy of standing alone? I can see a lot of wrangling over some of them as to whether they fit back into the band article or not. Some of them I think do deserve to stand alone. They certainly shouldn't be out and out deleted. I think merging them with discographies is a bad idea - rst20xx (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delist

Been discussed around here before, but why not starting a speedy de-list system. To SDL an article, you would have to leave comments on the article's talk page, and notify the article's WikiProjects and main editors. Then, when they fix the problems, they may re-submit the list at FLC.

Also, for those that should be merged, how should we go about discussing the merges?  iMatthew :  Chat  17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WT:FLRC? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing there.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the "speedy delist" criteria:

Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:

• has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or
• contains a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list

Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That was not my suggestion...  iMatthew :  Chat  20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be delisting FLs summarily. We should give primary contributors at least some time to bring lists up to snuff. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the type of lists that have been promoted over a year ago, and the contributors and/or project are both inactive.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide an example? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Well, we've got some pages at FLRC, but things have since kind of slowed down and halted. I would be in favour of dropping the minimum to 10 days, but that's up to the delegates. So, we might as well figure out how we are going to organize ourselves. We have a list above of potential FLs for delisting, so how do we proceed? Perhaps we should try starting some merge discussions with some of the pages? Alternatively, we could all start reviewing current FLs, but my biggest concern at the moment the FLs that outright fail the new criteria rather than the ones that have deteriorated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to work on the references. It shouldn't be hard to find reliable online sources for many of those FLs, especially the sports and pop-culture ones. Also, collaboration and sharing the effort is key: if we all cleaned up one FL every other day, we could reduce this list in no time. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing we probably should start doing, especially for the 3b FLC, is hosting Merge discussions somewhere. Does anyone have an adaptable template they care to dream up? A lot of the initial merge nominations would go the same way. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Miami Dolphins first-round draft picks

I would like to know the reason why the List of Miami Dolphins first-round draft picks is included under 3b. I understand the other three "first-round picks" lists, but I wonder about the Miami list inclusion. --Crzycheetah 23:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question, I'm not sure why I included it... Might have been a mistake on my part (I copied the wrong link or something along those lines). I'd have no problem with it being removed for now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Amateur Achievement Award

I have noticed that the Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific has been listed among the articles needing lead and referencing improvement. I added information into the lead and references as well. Is it OK now? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Only issue I can see is that the images need alternative text. Other than that, great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added it. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Great! I will remove this list from the not-up-to-standards list. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal

I stumbled across this list & spotted List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal is under both Structure & References - I can see the reference format need improving - which i will do but I'm unclear what is meant by structure - is this sortability & accessibility issues or is there something else I'm missing?— Rod ^talk 16:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)