Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Today's scheduled closures

I am getting to them - I'm just a bit late :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)

Could use some extra sets of eyes on the issue of the title of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents)/archive1. Geraldk (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, plagiarism and list-selection criteria

A user requested advice on this in relation to a proposal to add a list to WP. I passed this on to Moonriddengirl, who wrote the excellent Signpost article in March on "Plagiarism". She provided an opinion that FLC reviewers and nominators may find interesting. In particular, I found the distinction between "creatively" selected lists and "obvious and factual" selection criteria informative; it was also useful to be reminded of the distinction between copyright infringement and plagiarism.Tony (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More eyes needed for a criterion 3b "gray area"

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1900 Summer Olympics medal table/archive2. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delist criteria for 3b noms

Meh, I find that I'm coming around to the idea largely because it's becoming a little ridiculous to have 3b noms sitting at FLRC for extended periods when their delisting is all but certain. As such, I'd like to propose another speedy delist criterion that in the case of an unanimous consensus to delist per 3b, nomination can be archived in a week (a day or two less or more depending on when the nom comes relative to GimmeBot's schedule). It's pretty easy to distinguish between clear-cut cases of 3b and those that deserve more scrutiny. Bringing this up here because more people watchlist this page than WT:FLRC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support this. If anybody raises another issue besides 3b, however, I think the list must go through the complete process. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. I know it's annoying to have articles sitting around when most of the reviewers are in agreement, but the length of time requirement exists to allow for full discussion, and setting a precedent of removing articles without that length of time worries me. Geraldk (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is annoying, but I think I agree with Gerald because users don't always respond early. Take this for example. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Part of the problem, though, was that notifications weren't made. I think that we should mandate notifications, even if the lists can't be "fixed". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Dabomb's comment is pretty salient—if the WikiProjects or nominators don't care enough about it to comment within a week or so (give or take a day or two), then it's a bit pointless. Enforcement of the notification process would solve the problem you're bringing up. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, the relatively new change to the criteria is an even more important reason to notify the WikiProjects and primary contributors. Not everybody keeps track of the Featured list process. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

List naming discussion

See Talk:Australian national cricket captains#List name. Since this affects a sizeable amount of former Featured lists and sports lists (many of which are FLs), I would like input from Featured list regulars. Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Character lists?

I'm being told elsewhere that right now FLC does not consider "List of Characters" pages at all for featured lists. I can't find any exclusion of them on Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, so I'm not entirely sure of this. Can someone experienced with this process give me a quick explanation of what policies exist on lists of characters, or lists of fictional subjects in general? Thanks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this has always been an area of dispute that was never adequately resolved. Some think that they're articles (see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII) and others think they're lists (see List of Naruto characters). I actually had a character list that was rejected at FAC because of the impression it was a list and then I took it to FLC (see history for List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow). My best recommendation is to go with whatever the relevant WikiProject wants to do; for instance, WP:ANIME considers character lists as lists and recently had a character list (List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters) pass FLC. I think a hard ruling one way or another is hard because it would mean a ton of delisting one way or another (because some character lists are GAs, which it normally doesn't consider). 32.167.88.49 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Sephiroth BCR posting from his iPhone

Well, I ask because I'm trying to propose Wikipedia:Fiction, which is currently allowing a class of list articles as a compromise point between individual articles and no coverage, but this is running into some challenges as apparently those articles are not always considered "lists" as such, which is running into some trouble. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The closure log

This is an idea I've had and I want to try out. I've noticed that usually when Matthew or I don't do closures, we are asked why. Sometimes we forget, but other times (like today) there is nothing that really needs to be promoted or archived. Because of this, I'm going to try the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Closure log. This will allow us to explain why we did what we did. It might work, or it might fail miserably, but I'm going to try it for a bit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, if it doesn't add to much to your workload. Geraldk (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot for that. It helps me out (as a reviewer) too. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

More eyes needed for a criterion 3b "gray area" (2)

One of those infamous awards lists: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists within a list

Several months ago I submitted the List of Medal of Honor recipients article for FLC but it was rejected because, at the time it as felt that in order to be a complete list all recipients would have to be on this list regardless of size rather than split off into seperate articles as they are now. Is this still the case? I would like to resubmit it but before I do I wanted to verify it would stand a chance of passing.--Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good case for FLC. However, I did miss a huge and pivotal moment of historic discussion in FLC while I was away. Regardless of that, we have no "Good lists" and while your list forks out to a number of other lists, it is also a list within itself. Perhaps I'd get myself into trouble but a featured topic I was involved with was very similar, the List of UEFA club competition winning managers. It had not a great deal to offer on its own but was a good top-level collective list - perhaps you can come up with something similar for the MOH? I'd be interested in the opinions of the directors on this (and I acknowledge I have some work to do on some of those UEFA lists - when real life allows........) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. In fact, I've done the same (in effect) with the List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford - started off with one featured list with a good number of names, then split off three sub-lists (now all featured) as it got too large for one page, leaving a summary of the sub-list in the main list. Bencherlite^Talk 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would personally suggest focusing on the sublists first. Get those up to FLC standards, then nominate this one. I would be looking at this similarly to the way one would look at a Featured Topic---are the different parts feature quality? If the bulk of the sublists aren't feature quality, then I would be hesitant to pass this one.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hoping this one would pass on its own but it sounds like I will need to get the rest of the sublists up to flc first. Of those 2 are already at FL, plus 2 more for Naval academy and military academy alumni, 2 are FLC's currently and I should have the vietnam war ready to go to FLC by the end of the week. All the rest, especially the American Civil War have a lot of articles that have yet to be created so it will likely be a long time.--Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You create all of those? Yes, the Medal of Honor is huge, but I don't see why every person who earns it is automatically notable enough for an article, especially for some of those 150-year-old recipients. It would save you some time. Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a Medal of Honor receipient is without a doubt enough to make one notable enough for a WP article, there is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind. As for ever person having an article? No that is absolutely not required. While they may be notable enough for it, that does not equate to needing one. And not every item on a list has to have an article. (Take a look at the various Poker lists I've passed.) Also, IMO to get the list of list to FLC, you wouldn't have to have every sublist at FLC status, just the bulk of them.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the notibility thing and as far as getting the sublists to featured status I don't personally think that the sublists need to be FLC. We don't require articles to be featured in order for a list where they are to be fetured so why would we require it here. I didn't create most of the lists but I have done a lot of work on them and added a lot of articles for MOH recipents.--Kumioko (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Process Change

Ok, I've got half a dozen FLC's under my belt and I've noticed a problem with the process. As it stands right now, articles are promoted twice per week. I think that is a problem. Here is why, three times now I have personally experienced this. On Tuesday or Wednesday, at or near the end of the articles original listing period, somebody places an oppose and reasons for the oppose. As I work, I don't get to address them until Wednesday evening, by which time it is too late to be promoted in that batch. The FLC sits untouched, with no open issues, and appears to be ready to be promoted. Then Saturday afternoon at the last minute, somebody adds more comments, thereby effectively hanging up the article from getting promoted until the following Wednesday. This can be incredibly frustrating, as now you have to wait 4 more days, and I fully expect somebody to pop up on Wednesday with something else that needs to be fixed. I would propose that Wed/Sat remain the primary days for promotion, but that the FLC coordinators are free to use discretion and promote articles in the interim if the ten day period has expired. I've noticed that I am not the only person to whom this happens.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk to Gimmetrow. He told us that he only wanted to run his bot twice a week (Wednesday and Sunday), so we schedule the closures around this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, Spartacus, but as Scorpion says, the 'bot makes this process viable - if not the directors will spend hours topping and tailing and archiving FLCs whereas the majority of their time should be spent assessing borderline cases and providing "wisdom" where appropriate. There is, after all, no deadline for a list to be promoted, and while it can be annoying, an extra three or four days should make difference, especially if it makes the list even better. And as for the folks "popping up" minutes before every potential promotion moment, well, trust in your directors - they do an excellent job and will not deliberately upset good and honest, hard-working FL creators such as yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with having additional comments that improve the article, but it is still frustrating...I know that one of the FL's where this happened to me, they promoted despite a few open items, so I know that they try their best. The change to the process could be as simple as the coordinators archiving the discussion with a note "passed will be promoted on Wednesday June 3, 2009". This will alleviate the frustration of the last minute opposes, the angst of wondering, 'who is going to oppose at the last minute this week', and it would help focus reviewers on other lists that are in fact marginal. In the end, I could see this as reducing the workload.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's alright but if a genuinely new and reasonable concern is brought up at the last minute, it should be considered. That's one of the roles the FL directors should fulfill - once more, trust your directors, there's no time limit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with last second opposes? I'd like to point out that the purpose of FLC is to try to make lists as good as possible, not to allow nominators to put a little star on their user page. If there are last minute comments (reviewers are only human, they can't always comment at opportune times), isn't that a good thing, especially since comments are few and far between? I am completely against using "passed will be promoted on Wednesday June 3, 2009". If we have to wait until the nom is processed anyway, why not keep it open and allow users to continue to comment? It is frustrating to have to wait, but if that's what it takes to perfect a list, then sobeit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

100% agree. There is, after all, no time limit. The directors do a great job of keeping the backlog down and being as transparent as possible in their decision making. This is unique in Wikipedia. Enjoy it, and keep making great lists - don't be afraid of last-minute comments - they're just designed to make your great list even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I always try to review at least a couple days before the ten-day period is up. The agony is unfortunate, but when a last-minute reviewer pops up, be happy that you can make the list even better before promotion. There is no deadline; whether you get something promoted this week or the next won't affect the quality of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I know... I guess my suggestion wasn't that popular. I just find it frustrating to keep waiting while last minute reviewers chime in... Like I said, it's happened to me three times already and I've seen it happen to others as well.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an adendum, I should note, that I logged in Saturday afternoon to see if the 2007 WSOP results had been promoted, and saw another last minute oppose. Luckily the oppose was self-reverted, but I was ready at that moment to withdraw the nomination. The problem with the current system is that it encourages not working on the articles until Saturday/Tuesday and it encourages people to check the articles on Tuesday/Saturday. It REALLY sets a bad taste when you get those last minute opposes and don't have a chance to respond.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The directors are willing to do late promotions, e.g. Rolaids Relief Man Award. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Return of the 3b discussion

Just when you thought the 3b discussion was over, it returns. I've noticed that there have been some recent concerns over the vagueness of 3b and how it can be interpreted. I have started a review of the criterion here, and any comments or opinions would be more than welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada) (2nd nomination)

A FL is currently on AfD, and the nominator (Nergaal (talk · contribs)) is suggesting a merge of all the Canadian Hot 100 charts. The nominator is also saying that the Canadian charts aren't notable enough to have yearly chart articles. I'm just hoping that the experience editors of FLs can comment on this... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we merge all those Canadian hits together, howmany are we talking about. If the lists get too long they become unwieldy and difficult to open, read and edit so keeping them a bit smaller in my opinion is fine. I would also like to say that to someone in tibet a candian list of top 100 songs wouldn't be notible but in canada it could be. We have to remember that English wikipedia is not just for the US but represents all English speaking people throughout the world including canada. In my humble opinion its perfectly notable and should be kep.--Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The nominator was suggesting decade articles, which would look something like List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK). Not a bad idea, but the article was clearly taken to the wrong venue. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't I seen that UK list before! That looks a lot better than those boring tables in the Canada and Latin lists. Next time, I see one of these #1 single lists here, I am going to suggest the UK format.--Crzycheetah 01:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Think we should suggest merging the 13 Top Latin Albums lists into two superlists? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely! I just went over them and saw how short the first two 90s lists were (first and second); they can definitely be merged with the 1999 list into a "decade" list. I'll probably start a merge discussion, then go to WP:FLRC.--Crzycheetah 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the British version, I can definitely see this happen to the Latin albums, and the Canadian Hot 100 singles. Since there are so many merge talks about these charts, how about the Billboard Hot 100 charts? I'll notify WP:RECORD about this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

←Oppose merging. A full decade is too long of a time period. The by-year pages are just fine and they have been just fine for a long time. The formatting overhaul for the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 articles looks great and several were promoted to featured lists... a page for a full year with a nicely sourced write-up/summary (see List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.)) obviously works. I don't even know why the topic of Canada "not being notable enough" even started at AfD... the current Canadian Hot 100 began in 2007 and before that the country's official rankings were on the Canadian Singles Chart, I believe. If anything, I would suggest the UK page be broken up by year to match all of the other countries' lists in Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose merging: One of the major music markets, Canada is bound to have its separate list yearly and this will increase in each year. At present we have three lsit for Canadian Hot 100 (2007, 08, 09) hence I suppose the nominator proposed merging but this will become increasingly difficult as the years progress. If this is merged today (having songs from 2007 - 2010) imaging what will happen in the list for next decade (2011 - 2020)? It will become increasingly dificult to update the page. Look at what has happened to the UK list. I totally agree with Eric for separating that one rather than this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best place to hold a merge discussion but I like the idea. This decade's UK list looks okay, and there is a lot of redundent information in those other lists. We don't need a separate row for every week a single got to number one, columns for first time, and # of weeks is far more economical with space. Also because it doesn't have rowspans the UK list has the benefit of being sortable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merger - The US system, as Eo pointed out, looks absolutely fine. — R² 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Altough the UK list look good, I think is a bit long, not the best way to arrange it in my opinion, I don't think people would keep reading the entire list, and the lead don't have which songs were the best-selling or the longest number-one per year. I also don't see the need for a decade list when there are pages for every single year: 2008 in British music charts, 2009 in British music charts, etc. (all have the same information). Frcm1988 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What's up with all these bolded opposes here? Since when !voting happens at Featured list candidates talk page? This is supposed to be a discussion! Back to the discussion, in a decade list all the info you need is there, you don't have to find the links and click them to see the #1 songs in a 3 year period, for example. In a decade list, You can just scroll down to the year you want to see and you see it. If you want to see another year, just scroll down a little more. That's as easy as it comes.--Crzycheetah 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The UK chart is too messy indeed. But a proposal to merge Billboard Latin Albums chart is ongoing. Same format, although the Latin chart is not as huge as Billboard 200, which represents the entire United States. Same with Canada, which music industry is overwhelmingly developing, so I oppose. --Efe (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Third-party intervention requested

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked that the nomination that I requested for List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District be retracted. I disagreed with an editor's comments and did not think that editor had done a thorough and full look over the article, and did not think the suggestions from that one particular editor was constructive. I said I was willing and very fine and not upset if the article failed because I was unwilling to do that particular editor's suggestions. Suggestions by Dabomb87 were fine and will still be done regardless of the FL nomination because they are good suggestions that well thought out. I do not see the need of a third-party intervention, especially one requested without informing me of this step. It was an unneeded escalation and "intervention" by other editors in a two-party discussion that should have ended with me saying "no, I disagree, this is why, and I feel your suggestions are unconstructive, I'm fine with this failing if I dont do your suggestions" instead of others commenting that it was wrong for me to do so. I have taken the nomination off my watchlist, and dont want to be contacted about this any further.Camelbinky (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing plea

Wikipedia:Featured lists/Cleanup listing has just been updated and went from this to [1]. It would be nice if everyone reading this could take at the listing and see if they can fix some of them. Many of the issues will be minor and if the workload is shared out we can easily reduce this list. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists that should be featured

As a sort of side project, I've started brainstorming a list of lists that are of importance to the encyclopedia and therefore should be of featured quality, but aren't. Would appreciate some input, additions, subtractions, etc. Current location is User:Geraldk/lists that should be featured. Geraldk (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea. I was just thinking this afternoon that a list of potential expansions/improvements would be a good thing. Scorpion's great work on reasserting our criteria is, inevitably, reducing the number of FLs we have so this is the perfect counterweight. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working on the Lists of Medal of Honor recipients (there are 25 lists currently, 4 are already featured, 3 are candidates currently (Veracruz, Philippine-American War and Jewish American recipients) and I am working on 2 more (African American and Vietnam that I should have done soon. I have also submitted Commandants of the Marine Corps recently, I am working on the Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps now as we speak and I will start working on the Assistant Commandants in the next couple weeks.--Kumioko (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent thought, but it suffers from one problem. How are we going to determine which list is more important? For example, 50 Greatest Players in NBA History is one of the most important lists in WP:NBA, but in terms of the entire Wikipedia, it is certainly much less important.—Chris! _ct 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Military/Naval Academy alumni lists

I notice that the Military and Naval academy alumni Medal of Honor recipient lists are under the alumni section but I was wondering if we can also place these under the Medal of Honor section as well?--Kumioko (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The sum of all fears

Matthewedwards will be away for a week or more [2], so I'm in sole control (don't worry, I'm scared too). Let's not forget that the last time Matty took an extended break, I went rant that led to the ever-popular 3b criterion. Anyway, this is just a reminder to the reivewers out there that I will be doing closures today (in about 3-4-5 hours, around 22:00 GMT), so please make sure you revisit your comments (and reviewing some unreviewed ones would help too). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be a bit slow, as I'm not at a home computer. Bear with me, but I should be done by that time. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would do you all well do check out Scorpion0422's userpage. :D  iMatthew :  Chat  19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Content noticeboard

Just as a heads-up, I've created Wikipedia:Content noticeboard per what appears to be a fairly solid consensus; see here for background context. Any suggestions/comments are appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I going to be expected to add list new promotions on that page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but you should keep an eye on it if possible, in case anyone has any FL-related questions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Plea for reviews

Hi all. I'm not going to beat around the bush here; we need more reviews. I'm finding FLCs that, a week into their nomination, have nothing on their page aside from the nomination statement. Please consider reviewing one or two FLCs from the backlog; even if you only focus on one or two aspects of the list (prose, sourcing, content, formatting, etc.) it helps. Thank you, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a FLC running right now, my plea is even stronger for you. Even if you don't consider yourself a "good" reviewer, anything helps. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I really want to review all the noms at FLC right now, but after my little break I just lost interest in reviewing or even editing on Wiki anymore. Plus with school I really couldn't, but its over this week so I may as well start reviewing fully again on Thursday evening or all day Friday. So, I'll try tackling many noms, since my reviews are probably missed ;)--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are (missed). You don't have to review all, I'm sure how long I can sustain that anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you need a break my friend. I'll help out. Its just that some people don't know how to appreciate our efforts, I still can't get over that certain nominator and his nomination where he threw a fit over my review, like WTF? But I'll let it go (eventually). It would also help us too if the nominators copyedited the article beforehand as well.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also for all the reviewers get there, even if the list is perfect, or you barely have anything to say about it, at least support or oppose the nomination, just so that Scorpion and Matthew can actually determine if it is good enough to promote. If there's nothing on the page, the directors will probably think us reviewers are lazy...well not really, since I'm not Scorpion or Matthew. To Truco, I suck at copy-editing and grammar, so sorry about that. Also, definitely try to review the nomination two days before Wednesday or Sunday, so that the nominators won't get, well, angry.

Since it's summer, I'll probably have time to review all the nominations, so :D. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put a big one into the system, so I'll try to look at one or two other nominations this week. I'm a bit new at reviewing, so I'll try to take a cue from how the regular reviewers operate :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We could use reviewers at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip/archive1 :) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FLC Review format modification

In the short time I have started submitting and occassionally reviewing Lists I have noticed that most editors look for and use the same basic things so I have a recommendation. When the template builds the FLC review page can we build in sections for the following items:

Lead

Prose

Table structure

Disambiguous links

References

Images

Because different editors seem to have unique skill sets I think it would be easier to identify the problems.--Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy if the reviewers were just consistent. The same thing formatted the same way gets promoted in several FLs, then someone decides he doesn't like it, or decides it violates some obscure rule no one ever cares about and was not enforced before, etc etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I run into that a lot myself. The last minute snipers that wait until the 11th hour to make comments can also be quite frustrating.--Kumioko (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea, are you talking about having completely independant sections in which discussions about the various topics would place, or do you mean having reviewers categorize their comments using that guideline? Being able to organize concerns would be a benefit so it would be more obvious to certain reviwers if previous similar concerns were made. However, I think it would make things more complex and confusing and wouldn't have enough benefits. Either way, I'm curious to know what some of the regular reviewers think of this suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind some specialization, such as that for images and sources, like they have at FAC, but this seems to compartmentalize reviews, and seems to CREEPy. Making everything this organized might also put off new reviewers who aren't used to it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dabomb. Personally, I occasionally do dip into FLCs and review just the lead or images. However, I state this and don't support lists I've done this to (just say "images fine" or something). If we have lots of reviewers only doing partial reviews, they won't be able to adequately "support" the whole list, and so we would require even more reviews something there is not an abundance of. That said, I have not problem with a reviewer looking at a specific part of a list where it is appropriate or that reviewers "speciality". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make things more confusing, on the contrary, my thinking was by putting some compartmentalization into the review process I thought it might be easier for users who aren't familiar with the process. That way they can just review what they are comfortable with and move on. Also the submitter can review the comments by type rather than dig through them (which I personnaly have found to be confusing at times). This way if you only want to review images you just go to the images section of that list, make your comments (needs captioning, pictures too big, too many images, or just the images look fine). Also, when changes are made (potentially) when the edit summery is generated you'll see images/Foo.--Kumioko (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't like this idea at all. It unnecessarily split up comments into different parts and make it impossible to cap resolved comments.—Chris! _ct 01:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

FLC Template

The FLC template isn't working.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Did you substitute it? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot proposal

The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of New York City Subway stations

I have been working on this list in the pattern of other featured train station lists. I believe a split of this list is in order because it has 467 (468) entries and a lengthy prose section (that will be verified) that is bound to get bigger because the New York City Subway has many intricacies. So, after a suggestion by Dabomb87, I ask if a split of this list is appropriate and if all resulting elements (the parent and the split lists) will meet FL criteria 3 (a and b). I also proposed three kinds of splits on the talk page, so that's another question I ask. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Glossary leads?

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States/archive1. FLC usually doesn't get these type of lists, so there isn't much precedent to follow. To what extent should the lead cover on the subject? More opinions requested. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A FL delegate

As of late, I've been pondering my future with FLC because I will be gone at least 5 (non-consecutive) weeks in the Summer, then in the Fall I'll have considerably less time to edit. Matthewedwards has also been having computer problems, so we decided it would be best to appoint a delegate who would be able to help us out. (For the record, here at FLC, a delegate is basically a director and would have the same tasks as we do) We have decided to ask The Rambling Man to fill in that position. We did discuss some other names, but we decided to go with TRM as he used to be director, so he would fit into the position easier. He will remain FLR delegate for the time being, but if he would like to pass that on to someone, that's up to him.

So consider this a confirmation post. I'm sure TRM will be willing to answer all (if any) questions anyone has. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your time off Scorpion. TRM should be a fine choice, so long as he is willing to handle both FLC and FLRC. – (iMatthew • talk) at 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A no-brainer. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support subject to TRM's confirmation he's happy to do both. I always have to check when someone says "no-brainer", in case it's a comment about the intellectual capacity of the person under discussion, rather than a statement that the answer is so obvious that it requires no brain-power to deduce... Fortunately, the context here is clear! Bencherlite^Talk 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, he has agreed. [3] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I had just seen your talk page and was coming back to alter my comment with the very same diff, but you beat me to it! Bencherlite^Talk 22:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, endorse. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely support TRM as a delegate. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, "delegate" I am. As ever, I aim for my work to be as transparent as possible. I know things have changed since I was a director (and very much for the better, predominantly down to Scorpion's enforcement of that nasty, nasty 3b) but I'll do my best to not let the community down. As ever, hit me with a trout if I make a pig's ear out out of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"You say you're a duo? Yeah, duos are good, but sometimes they are a little shorthanded. With two humans, you'd think there would be a robot in there, to balance things out..." - Bender B. Rodríguez. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no one opposes, I have added TRM to the template. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

SPoTY merge into FL

Please see this merger discussion about merging an non-featured article into a featured list. This has the possibility of merging and effectively giving the other page featured status. I don't want to be seen as cheating and wanted opinions on the merge. Also, please note I'm completely willing to go through the process again or just FLRC if necessary. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why the peer review bot isn't reviewing FLC?

It seems to me that it would be pretty useful to have around? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, to be perfectly honest, I've never found the PR bot to be particularly useful. Moreover, the bot is intended for article improvement; by the time an article gets to F*C, it should be more-or-less free of major flaws. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should. Hence the bot review. That being said the bot should/could probably be tweaked for list articles since they are considerably different than "regular" articles. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We can try it and see how it comes out but I too have had sketchy results with it, it tends to give very generic comments and frequently generates false positives, IMHO. It can't hurt though.--Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At PR, it is me using a script as User:AZPR, so it is a semi-bot at best. I do not have the time to do this, but others could install and use the script if they want to. Please see this discussion. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A FLRC deputy

In consideration of the previous section, I'm just letting the community know that iMatthew is going to deputise for me at FLRC while I'm delegating for Scorpion and/or Matthewedwards at FLC. I trust the community will trust my judgement along with their own in supporting iMatthew in this role. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to start doing closures in a few weeks if nobody has any objections. I won't be starting yet, as TRM hasn't started with FLC (being that Scorpion is still around) and most of the FLRCs up are ones I've !voted in. – (iMatthew • talk) at 20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance by what is FLRC?--Kumioko (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured List Removal Candidates. <joke>Or where The Rambling Man demotes all the lists that he promoted when he was FLC director. </joke> Bencherlite^Talk 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm well aware of the irony (is that the right word?) of me nominating quite a few pages I promoted for removal. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping we'd be able to go a while without changing FLR delegates because in the past year we've had Matthewedwards & Dweller, Dweller & Gonzo fan2007, Dweller & Sephiroth BCR, Sephiroth & TRM and now Sephiroth & iMatthew c/o TRM. But, I'm sure iMatthew will do a great job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Scorpion. You know, we wouldn't be changing if you didn't have to leave, and Matty didn't have such terrible luck with computers. :P – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, but what is the difference between "director" and "delegate" in the FL process anyway? I know that at FA, Raul654 (talk · contribs) is the head honcho, and everyone else (SandyGeorgia, Karanacs, YellowMonkey, Joelr31) are his delegates, and are appointed by him. I don't see that parallel here. Do we have an FL "director"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Matty and I are co-directors. Here at FL there is no difference between a director and a delegate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion related to FLRC. Rather than remove them from featured content status why don't we call that R rehabilitation and try and fix the problems first before demoting it. Maybe give it a couple week grace period before we demote it so that it can be fixed (for those that are being demoted based on problems with the article and not because of something more severe).--Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm... that's what it is. It's not an immediate-delist process. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

O, Sorry I misunderstood. --Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has to be willing to work on/save a list, if nobody is willing to put in the time, it won't get saved.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Random analysis: eight FLs were delisted today. Of those, six were delisted due to criterion 3b and nothing could have been done in principle to save them. Of the other two, one probably needs an extended period to be brought up to FL standards and there was little chance of its being improved in time (considering the primary contributor is inactive). The other was definitely saveable, but could have done with more reviews (and more importantly, someone to work on the list). In short, FLRC doesn't need "reviewers", but FL regulars should look in time to time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on a list, responding to comments, that's the key. Regular reviewers won't bother coming back to FLRC if their comments are completely ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of living Band of Brothers veterans/archive1

I am concerned about User:NickOrnstein's action. He nominated the above article on June 28. When the article received several opposes, he removed them from the nomination page. I've boldly reverted the edit. But I think that I should bring this to your attention.—Chris! _ct 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe he tried to restart the nomination. Maybe Dabomb87 can do the withdrawal steps for him?--Crzycheetah 02:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I left him a note here. Only directors/delegates are allowed to restart nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Alt text Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm back

I was unable to come online between Thursday and today because I'd gone over my 5GB of usage that Sprint gave me on my data card. Anyway, I've got proper home service now. I'll get settled and then do some closures. A bit off schedule, but it's better than waiting until Saturday. Thanks to The Rambling Man for taking care of things over the weekend, without prompting, and apologies to everyone who was expecting me to be around. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also back. Let the celebrations commence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WOOOOOOOOOO!! --Truco ₅₀₃ 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What Truco said. ;b O, and Scorpion0422, could you comment on the second last section on WT:OLYMPICS. Thanks in advance! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm back again :) Phone line shorted out this time. I have all the luck with my internet 9_9 Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

List Vs article

I'm working on several lists to get ready for featured list, most of them split out from a main article to be a standalone list - but at times I find that kinda pointless, content forking to get the format "List of xxx". For instance I'm looking at the CMLL World Women's Championship article and well to me the current format (with a lot of FLc preparations) is by itself a list and there is no need to split it out, both because there isn't a lot to write and the list is only 12 or so lines long. I've looked over various places but I'm lacking a clear indicator to tell me if this would qualify as a list in it's current format, I personally lean towards yes but I'd like some input on the matter. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It clearly needs more expansion for the top-level article on the topic, even for a Women's event, which you already know. But yes, this would definitely qualify as a list, otherwise it would be a content fork leaving an article without a useful list and a list without the article information. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wednesday's archives

There were no archives on Wednesday, and no explanation why. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion's busy (and is about to leave for another 3 or 4 weeks), Matthew was offline, and TRM has his own things to attend to. Of course, that is not a pre-approved message from the FL directorate, so don't take it at face value :) ::Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm Scorpion0422 and I approve this message. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wednesday was two days ago, and that's just doesn't feel right to have both busy...don't you guys think it's time TRM should get delegate director options again? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad...fixed sentence. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just that time of the year when we're all busy wih other things. I agree that it's unfortunate, but please try to be patient. If it gets to the point where the three of us can't do closures on eitther of the days, perhaps one of the FLR delegates/deputies could handle things? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been unfortunate, and I apologise for my absenses; please don't forget this is a voluntary project, and there may be times when none of us are around. If I can forsee myself not being around I tell someone, as does Scorpion. This summer I have had connection issues pop up on me without any notice. I expect there will be a big archiving over the next 24 hours, so don't worry about any candidates that are way overdue. One upside is that they've had the chance for additional eyes, too. Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• <= You don't have to apologize for your absence, you all do this voluntarily and stuff happens. I personally appreciate the work and hours you put into this for no other reason than you want to make Wikipedia better. I think that in the future it'd be best to just roll with it if a date is missed and just keep on plugging away at the lists, improving everything we can. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  I'm with MPJ-DK. If all the directors and delegates happen to miss a date, it's no big deal. There is no deadline. It will happen in due course. However, we'll all do our best to make sure the situation doesn't arise again. My own apology comes from the fact that I've been busy getting a few of my own lists up and running and promoted (WOOHOO!). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And Dabomb87 is correct, I'll be going away tomorrow for a few weeks and I'll be back on or around August 12. I might pop in once or twice, but it wouldn't be for long. Have fun and keep generating great content. While I'm at it, is iMatthew still going to be named an assistant delegate for FLR? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

After talking to TRM early this morning, it seems like it. While you're gone, TRM will help Matthewedwards with FLC closures, and I'll be taking over FLRC (being that Sep is MIA). Once Sep comes back, I'll leave it up to him whether he'd like me to continue helping him, or if he wants to take it solo. iMatthew ^talk at 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, sorry to be a pain, but I'll be away from Friday August 8th to Saturday August 15th. So either TRM or Matty will have to handle FLRC that week. iMatthew ^talk at 19:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well let's none of us get our knickers in a twist about it. As I said before, there's no deadline. If we all somehow miss a promotion date, so be it. It may disappoint a couple of people hoping for their bronze star, but it'll only be a few more days before the issue is ultimately resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Needs more reviews before scheduled closures

• List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions (FLC) This FLC has become pretty difficult to follow, and I think the WP:TL;DR-ness of it has stopped further reviews. If anyone is willing to review it, please do. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you restart it? I'm afraid of bringing up issues that have already been touched upon, and the tldr part of it is quite daunting. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some FLRC's could use more reviews as well. Could some of the FLC regulars head over to FLRC and review some of the lists there. iMatthew ^talk at 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Its just so hard to keep up with all these nominations, eh. I leave for a month and I am stacked high with reviews-pending.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

List of counties in Rhode Island

I was thinking of opening a FLRC for this FL due to it not meeting 5b, but I was thinking since there is no way this list can be expanded in anyway, its probably an exception? Thoughts?--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being FL at all since it's integrally related to all other county lists, and I do not see it being merged. Reywas92^Talk 02:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Minium ten entries to qualify for FL

Recently, I've tried to nominate a list for FLC, List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters, and much to my surprise was told that if a list does not have 10 entries, that it is an unwritten rule that it is not long enough to qualify for FL status. So, let me get this straight. If any list that has satisfied all the criteria at WP:FL? that has less than 10 entries will still not be able to become an FL? Is this really what I'm being fed when there's nothing at WP:FL? that states this?--十八 07:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it is an unwritten rule, but I think the only list that passed with eight entries is List of United States Presidents who died in office. That article passed because it is uncommon for a US President to die in office. Even though List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters cannot be expanded no longer, the list has only five entries, and could possibly be merged with the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's only if the list can be "reasonably included" per criterion 3b, and I think merging a ~14KB list into an already lengthy 50KB main article is anything but reasonable.--十八 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that List of United States Presidents who died in office could be merged into List of Presidents of the United States, but that's for another time. There has been precedent that generally, lists that do not have more than 10 items are not eligible for FL status. I've never liked the fact that this is an unwritten rule, but when we discussed this a few months ago, consensus supported that status quo. There are exceptions, and manga/anime lists tend to get more leeway since the actual content of the list in those articles is much more due to the amount of prose in them. I'm not sure about this one, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like it. I have no problem with it being a guideline, but I think there should be wiggle room. For example, you have three similar lists on the same (yet distinct) concepts. The first list has 20 items, the second has 15, and the third has 9. Is there any reason why the first two should be FL eligible, but the third denied due to an unwritten rule? As long as we are willing to IAR, I have no problem with it as a guideline, but it needs to be flexible.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is wiggle room, that's why it's a guideline and not a written in stone requirement. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Red links discussion

I have started a discussion about the red links criterion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Red links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Background color of archived and promoted candidates

I came across this candidate and noticed the background of the archive was red. Are candidates that are promoted normally closed with a red color? If so, wouldn't it make sense that they should be green or blue instead? I know this isn't a big deal, but it just struck me as kinda odd.--Rockfang (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You would have to talk to User:Gimmetrow, whose bot completes FLC closures and adds the colour. Red for me is okay. It means don't edit. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll talk with Gimmetrow as well. I understand your logic for using a red background. I was more thinking along the lines of unsucessful and sucessful ones. Bot requests also work in a similar fashion: approved and not approved. Granted they down all use the exact same colors, but red makes me think of a "negative" result.--Rockfang (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

When the colors were set up, FACs closed with a color corresponding to the color scheme of WP:FA at the time, and FLCs closed with a color corresponding to the color scheme of WP:FL at the time. WP:FL changed at some point but that's the origin. Gimmetrow 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the logic of that, but I think a red/green coloring for "not promoted/promoted" would make more sense? Does anyone else have any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page

I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps some of you more active list editors would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FL page format

There's been recent discussion at WT:FA#dividing FAs into more categories or adding subcategories and earlier at WT:FA#Music about reorganizing WP:FA, and whether it would be beneficial to rearrange it to look similar to WP:GA, something we did back in November 2008.

I was just wondering how people like the current WP:FL layout compared to what it was before the switchover. Personally, I find the many sub-categories difficult to maintain, and always get lost when adding certain lists on promotion, but then most people only look at the page, rather than edit it. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Either format is fine with me but personally I look the newer format. Although I agree with your statement that the more categories we have the harder they are too maintain. --Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Because some categories of FLs tend toward a large number of a series of lists (e.g. tallest buildings in $city), the subcategories and sub-subcategories work nicely in places. In others, such as Religion, mysticism and mythology, they're a bit of a pain and unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS no longer requires images to use thumbnail form

See this thread at WT:FAC, this discussion at MOS talk, and this change to the MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Emdash or Image

It has recently been brought to my attention that an emdash should be placed in the table space if the cell of the table is left blank (that part I knew) even for an image (thats the part I didn't know). I think that putting it in a blank space makes sense but I do not agree that putting adash in a space for an image makes sense though and I recommend using something similar to File:no image.png|75px|alt=This image is inserted to represent no image in places where there is not image in stead of the dash. Partly because I don't like the way all the dashes clutter up and look in the image spaces but also because I think from an alt text perspective it is rather confuzing. I was hoping to solicite everyones opiions on doing this though. --Kumioko (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea. Does the 75px have to be specified? It's a 1x1 px image that serves no purpose other than for alt text. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know honesly, thats just how I have always seen it. --Kumioko (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anybody willing to do some reviews?

The following need more reviewers before archiving at the weekend, please. If people are able, every little helps.

• List of Olympic medalists in figure skating (FLC)
• List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s (FLC)
• List of districts of Sri Lanka (FLC)
• List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters (FLC)

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the first three, but am reluctant to do the last because of 3b concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, looked at the last one too. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text in featured lists

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) asked me to comment here on when to use alt text in featured lists as per WP:ALT. We're discussing this at quite some length in WT:FAC #Alt text in images and WT:FAC #Alt text helps the visually impaired. The Rambling Man asked particularly about portraits, and I imagine that some featured lists have lots of portraits. I went looking for one, found List of American Idol finalists, which I'd like to use for an example. The basic question here is, what would a visually-impaired person find useful to know about the visual appearance of each of these people? The goal is not to write a long and dry alt text that completely describes an image; instead, it's to write a brief description of the gist of the image. For the example article, I'd expect each brief description to note the age, sex, and other immediately noticeable features (the girth and baldness of Studdard, the gray hair of Hicks). I'd shoot for a target of one to three dozen words per portrait. The goal is to capture the essence of the person's appearance by giving the big picture and one or two telling details. For the lead image File:Sanjaya at Seattle Center.JPG, for example, the alt text might be "Older teenaged boy with long brown hair, slightly built, smiling and looking down and away from a microphone aimed at him". Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivial data in manga lists

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Trivial data in manga lists. Goodraise 03:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Close request

I have withdrawn the FLC for List of districts of Sri Lanka. Can someone please close it? Thanks in advance. ≈ Chamal ^talk 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

FL needs formatting attention

I came across List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame earlier, but it's displaying incorrectly for me. The table is showing up after the references and external links, and there's some sort of balloting table (possibly a template) that's edging over the right side of the page. I looked at it in edit mode but couldn't find the problem. Can someone else try, please?

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, but there's a lot of whitespace. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that better? The table tag wasn't closed which leads to trouble.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  01:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now, yes, although Dabomb is correct in that there is a lot of whitespace. Perhaps the images need resizing a little, but it depends if we think it's a big problem or not. All the information is there and readable now, and it only affects those with smaller resolutions or non-widescreen monitors. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Chrishomingtang fixed the whitespace problem, at least for me. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed here too. Thanks, everyone Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should merged pages be credited at WP:WBFLN?

Hello everyone! Most of the regulars know that there's a page at WP:WBFLN that lists Wikipedians by the number of featured list nominations. There's a problem in that list. There are several former featured lists that are merged into a new or existing featured list; as a result, the editors receive credit for the work on the lists that were demoted, then merged into another list. For example, User:Gary King worked on six different lists that were eventually merged into List of universities in Canada. Now, he gets seven rust-colored stars for List of universities in Canada and none for the other six lists that were merged; the stars are rust-colored because that list was demoted recently. Now, User:Jaespinoza has two blue stars for List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums from the 1990s, but there's no star for List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999. If you want to express your opinion on this, please read User talk:Rick Bot, as well.--Crzycheetah 01:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care for that page one bit. Other than what User:Moni3 said at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, "I use it occasionally to see if other Wikipedians who allude to familiarity with the FA process have actually produced an FA." I pretty much agree with the nominator's statement. I suppose it should at least be kept factual, though, and Rick seems to indicate this is possible. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really pay attention to the numbers that much either—in particular, it's possible to create a high number of FL lists in a series (e.g. awards lists, head coaches / managers / seasons / draft picks / pitcher lists, M&A lists), writing several dozen FLs isn't amazing (although still noteworthy and commendable). The two things I like about these lists are their ability to identify whose lists are probably outdated and need work due to the delist percentage (e.g. Aloan's from 2005), and that you can find editors who focus on specific topics (e.g. Raime with tallest buildings lists; Scorpions with The Simpsons, hockey and Olympic lists). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The nominations pages get messier every day

The nomination pages are getting very messy and hard to read. I was thinking that to organize these pages better, we should start adding subheaders, and in parenthesis, which part of the article you're reviewing (e.g. === Review by X (prose, refs) ===, === Review by Y (table, prose) ===, === Review by Z (whole article) ===).

On the main FLC page, we'll limit the TOC to only level 1 headers. Let's at least try it out, because I think the reviews would flow much better if they were better organized. iMatthew ^talk at 17:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You could differentiate between reviews by using a semicolon, like:

Review by blah

• I don't like the colour of the sky.
• Yellow doesn't suit me.

Review by blah 2

• The use of the letter s annoys me.
• Why oh why oh why does a capital M take up so much space?

And in that way you don't get TOC issues. You don't get subsections, but at least it delineates different folks' comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point of the subsections is to have an easily navigational TOC. I really want to see the "which part of the article you're reviewing" somehow used, because it would help other reviewers see which parts of the article still haven't been reviewed. iMatthew ^talk at 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, you said limit the TOC to 1 level. Now you're saying we should have an easily navigable TOC for subsections? The two don't work together... And most reviewers (and okay, I'm only talking about, say, myself, Dabomb, Truco, Crzycheetah) review the whole list... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he means a TOC within the nomination page. Also, while highlighting what has been reviewed might lead to other sections being scrutinised, I think it's good to have more than one pair of eyes per section and wouldn't want reviewers to be put off because someone else has already covered the ground. Nev1 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough, but I rarely see people reviewing just one section (beside the sources). I know, from personal experience, that I won't review a list from scratch if there are outstanding comments that haven't been fixed up by the nominator. As I said, I (and most other reviewers) hit the whole list in one go. But I do visit FLC every day, so it's something that sorts itself out as long as the nominator is quick on fixing things. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the desire for more structure. I know that reviewers, if asked nicely, will be happy to strike/cap their resolved comments to keep FLC pages to a manageable size. IMO, TOCs on nomination pages add, rather than inhibit, clutter. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's very unorganized. I was about to review a list, but it was too much of a pain to see what was already reviewed and what wasn't, so I went to do other things. :P iMatthew ^talk at

Which FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

When reviewing articles (whether FLs, FAs, or peer reviews), I prefer not to read what others have said about the article in case it colours my view. I read other opinions after I've read through the article and made my comments so I can then think about the article from other people's perspective. It also has the benefit of not being put off by what other people have said or done. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not use the semi colon, which will produce a bold header, but without the edit section. It makes a complete mess of WP:FLC when candidate pages are transcluded and there's a bunch of Level 3 or 4 edit sections. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I originally said, you can set the TOC to only show level 2 headers. iMatthew ^talk at 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just too much, IMO. There shouldn't be any guideline on how to state the comments. We're all different and we like different styles, so let's not make changes that will make some of us uncomfortable. As DaBomb already mentioned, when the review is done, most reviewers cap their comments and that makes nominations look neater. --Crzycheetah 03:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists of listed buildings

I know that the naming convention for lists is that they should start with "list of", but when naming lists on listed buildings it sounds clumsy. I'm just testing the waters whether it would be ok to remove "list of" from articles such as list of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) is a guideline rather than policy, and while I support consistency across Wikipedia, I do think that clumsy naming could be avoided here. If people agree, I'd be happy to carry out the necessary page moves myself (leaving behind redirects of course); if not, oh well, it's not the end of the world. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, I'm a great proponent of the "List of" naming guideline. However, I also know that it's just that: a guideline. I also think that perhaps removing the "List of" might make sense here in removing the unprofessional repetition. I don't mind if they are moved back. Let's wait for others' opinions, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal as it shouldn't affect the reader's expectations of the articles, it just sounds a bit clumsy. If people here think we should stick with the status quo, I'd be happy with that too. Nev1 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer Listed buildings in ... format for all such U.K. historic site list-articles. Note, there was previously extensive discussion (at least at wt:NRHP and then a decision to rename all the U.S. NRHP list-articles (over 1,000 now) to format National Register of Historic Places listings in .... Actually I think none of those are FLs yet, but many are on their way there. doncram (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that removing "List of" from lists such as List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) would be much neater and less clumsy (and less silly?). But if that were done, it would have to apply to all lists of listed buildings; thank goodness Nev1 has volunteered to sort this out if needs be. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I note one reference in discussion elsewhere was to this edit by Dabomb87, in which a "Scheduled Monuments in ..." was moved to a "List of Scheduled Monuments in ..." name. For what it's worth, "List of Scheduled Monuments in..." sounds fine to me (or "Scheduled Monuments in ..." also sounds fine to me). While i do object to "List of listed buildings in...". In the middle, objection-wise, would be "List of Grade X listed buildings in ...", for which repetition of "list" and "listed" is not quite as jarring. I would probably prefer "Grade X listed buildings in ...".

To clarify a smidge about the U.S. NRHP list renamings, it was the repetition within names like "List of National Register of Historic Places listings in...", which includes three list words ("List", "Register" and "listing") which especially made the "List of..." seem superfluous. Again, none of these have gone thru FLC yet. doncram (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer "List of" to be removed & have only used this on this lists I've done because of the guideline - this has included moving "Grade 1 listed buildings on Bristol" (which I believe was the first of these lists to get FL status) to List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol - but happy to move them back.— Rod ^talk 12:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's good to see that the pages haven't just been moved without any sort of discussion, as -- at least for the FL ones -- stability is part of the FL criteria. So I'm happy that there is some sort of discussion about the retitling, but I think it's being held in the wrong place. If we (meaning the Wikipedia community, not just the FL community) are deciding to rename these pages, it should really be done at somewhere like the Wikiproject's talk page. I hoenstly don't think it is a good idea for it to be hashed out here, because someone can come along and says we (meaning the FL community) bullied or pressured for the move. There needs to be a proper proposal where the entire community can speak, because it's not just affecting Featured content. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue was raised here as it would be going against the convention of naming lists which, because of the standards set and disseminated by FLC, effectively originates here. If consensus was reached at somewhere like WT:HSITES would that be acceptable? Nev1 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. I assume most of these lists are affiliated with that WikiProject, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'd be against the removal of "List of" from these articles. If implemented it could also be said to be applicable to over 100 "List of windmills in xxxx" articles. With "List of" in the title, it is clear to a prospective reader that they will be viewing a list. Without "List of", a reader could assume that the article is a general article related to the title of the article, and not a list. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We've lost a FLC reviewer

User:Truco has informed me that he will no longer be available to review Featured list candidates because of school and other off-wiki related time constraints. :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a real shame. Hopefully we can find more reviewers who are as diligent as Truco. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Aw thanks you guys. I hate to not be able to review anymore, but time is really my enemy. I only do minor edits throughout the day now, and by the 24th, that will slowly decrease (I predict). But I see that there is a backlog and being short of reviewers isn't good for the process, so I think between now and then I can squeeze in a couple final reviews. But I only want to review those that urgently need reviews, and those will be on the backlog template I assume; if there is one really needing attention, please post it here. I can do about 5, maybe 10 (max) reviews by next Sunday. I just don't want to leave you guys empty handed. --Truco ₅₀₃ 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Truco, you can't possibly have left us "empty-handed" after all that you've done. That said, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Jackson videography/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2007 NBA Draft/archive1 probably need eyes. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you guys need the help so I'm willing to give up my free time for it. Those will be the first 2 I get then, in about an hour :P--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two are  Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Make that 5, I don't think I can do 10 and I don't want to leave you wondering.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Schedule of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Can "Schedule of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics" be considered a list? Or this is an article? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 04:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This one's much closer to a list in my opinion. I wouldn't submit the list to FLC just yet, though. It needs symbols to accompany the colors per WP:COLOR. The bigger question is, though, why can't these two table be put into the main article? They wouldn't make it that much longer. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The main article is too long yet. These tables should not be put in Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics because I am working to expand this list, adding a complete schedule of the sport events. Thank you; Felipe Menegaz 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not an article, but not exactly a list either. I would agree with Dabomb. I know you've been working hard on it, but the Rio bid doesn't need six huge articles/lists (yet). We'll find out in less than two months if any of it will actually even happen at all. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is list-ish enough. However, as a member of the Olympics wikiproject, I really don't like the idea of the schedule of a potential bid getting its own page. There isn't one for the schedule of the 2008 Summer Olympics (although it is in its own seperate template: template:2008 Summer Olympics Calendar). And the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics page isn't THAT long (no longer than the FAs Olympic Games or Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, both of which combine a lot of text with large tables). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

As I said, this list will be expanded with the venues schedule, and for that is needed an own page. Use these tables as templates would not be aesthetically good for the main article as the other tables have their own pages (Evaluation and Venues). Regards; Felipe Menegaz 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6, stability

In the Featured list criteria, Criterion 6 states, "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process."

One page, Desperate Housewives (season 1), was nominated at WP:FLC today only 7 minutes after 27,026kb of text was added to the page.

Does this amount of change constitute changes in expectation of the featured list process, or should large changes like this be left alone for a while for other editors of the page to discuss them? Is it considered "stable" right now and should the FLC continue? The page has not had a Peer review following the changes. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, criterion six should really be a problem unless it is a controversial subject. Desperate Housewives, thought it might be a very drama-filled show, isn't exactly the most contentious of subjects, so I see no reason to hold off on the nomination. If stability does become a problem during the long weeks of FLC; well, I suppose it can always be closed then. NW (Talk) 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the stability criterion (whether at FLC, FAC, or GAC) was to ensure that the article reviewed would be reasonably close to the article readers would see further down the line. That's why stuff like vandalism isn't included as it's usually caught and reverted. When an article undergoes such a major expansion, I would expect that the author has an idea of what the article should look like, and given that it was nominated at FLC immediately, the writer probably thinks it's done. I'd consider it stable, but if there are concerns it might be worth asking the author if further significant changes are planned. IMO, the series has aired, and the article appears well developed so I wouldn't anticipate any further instability, although a day or two to allow the regulars on the article might have been good to see what their views are; that said, it appears to be mostly the work of one person. Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

With a lack of reviewers, what constitutes consensus?

The entire Featured process is currently lacking in reviewers. The FLC instructions says:

For a nomination to be promoted, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

• 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.

Before I do any closures today, I just want to find out what people are happy with how we do them.

When looking at which nominations can be closed, I look to see how many detailed reviews the list has received, how many people have opposed, how many have supported, if discussions are ongoing (there has been activity in the last 24 hours) etc etc.

The actionable objections have not been resolved is fairly easy to determine, and on the flip side, if a reviewer has opposed with comments that have been resolved but the reviewer has not returned, it's likely that I will ignore the oppose, such as with Truco's review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/CMLL World Mini-Estrella Championship/archive1, especially now he has effectively left Wikipedia. But it's the other two points that are causing issues right now. What is consensus these days? A while ago we has a !vote counting system where a list would be promoted when it had a majority of 4 supports, but that was dropped. Now a nomination does well if it gets four people to review, and we often have nominations that get only 2 supports.

What I'm asking is if a nomination is reviewed by two or three people, does that satisfy the third bullet point, and secondly, does 2 supports equal consensus? I'm hesitating more and more in closing because I'm not sure any more, but it means nominations are left open longer and longer without them necessarily getting any further reviews. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

More reviewers need to be found. I really wish I could do it myself, but I just don't have the time. iMatthew ^talk at 20:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this might be a drastic step, but what if we had as a requirement for submitting a list be reviewing another active FLC (with comments; straight supports wouldn't be allowed). That way, we should be able to get at least three reviewers on every FLC, which should be enough to establish a consensus. NW (Talk) 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards, since there are two others to close FLCs, have you considered reviewing the nominations yourself? (Please don't think this is sarcastic or rude or anything, I'm just wondering if that's why you haven't been reviewing FLCs.) iMatthew ^talk at 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a good idea. Would it be seen as a conflict of interest? Would it be seen as I'm trying to push any ideals of FL I may have onto each nomination? Are other reviewers going to be influenced by what I've said? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The only things that we can do are strongly encourage nominators to review articles and aggressively solicit reviewers from WikiProjects and editors with similar interests. Matthewedwards, you might have to resort to not promoting articles that have not received enough supports and/or reviews. That would force nominators to realize how the lack of reviewers negatively affects all nominations, and would prompt them to be more aggressive in asking reviewers to revisit their nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) to Matthewedwards, If you don't close the nominations you review, it's not a problem at all. Scorpion is around, I think, and TRM has been reviewing, I think. If you want to review, and Scorpion isn't around to do closures, maybe you should consider having someone else help close candidates. iMatthew ^talk at 21:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion isn't as active as he used to be, and TRM has been held back by real life and the ruckus that surrounded his re-cratting. Matthewedwards is our only regularly available director these days. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an occasionaly reviewer (is that what I am?), I'm wondering two things. The first thing is: could the backlog be made more informative/useful? Many editors transclude {{User:X!/RfX Report}} onto their userpages and only comment on RfAs when they are in the orange-yellow. Personally, I'd be more inclined to do a review if I could see on first glance if and how urgent an FLC is in need of reviews. (On a side note: By promoting two-support nominations, you may actually be deterring reviewers. If such FLCs are placed in the backlog, only to be promoted anyways, it basically sends the message that so little support is enough. A prospective reviewer might conclude that their third (or fourth) support isn't necessary and spend their time editing something else.) The second thing I'm wondering is: how useful are partial reviews? I don't usually make a !vote unless I have done a complete review, and even then, I'm careful when it comes to the "brilliant prose"-criterion, as my ability to judge prose quality is somewhat limited. If I knew I could do something like: "Support (note: did not check for criterion 1a)", I could do three reviews in the time it currently takes me to do just one. (The statement: "Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination" kind of implies that one should check for all criteria.) Goodraise 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I haven't left Wikipedia. I just won't be as on as much, and as you can see my lack of time is already working against the process like with the CMLL list: this is what I want to avoid with future nominations if I review them. Now I will do my best to try to review at least one or two lists a week since FLC is really lacking reviewers, hope this helps :) I can squeeze them in.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Who, or more importantly how, would it be determined when something goes into a yellow or red status. Could a bot read each nomination and make a decision based on how many users have commented? I have no problem with anyone doing a partial review and stating that your support is only based on what you've reviewed, like when DaBomb checks references. If someone does an image review, I'm happy for them to support based only on images being up to par such as having alt text, correct FURs, upright tags, etc.

I can't say I've never promoted something with only two supports -- it's likely that I have if there are two supports and one or two other reviews from people where everything has been resolved -- but more often than not I will leave it open. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution—a compound one, I think—is contained in the comments above. First, let's remember that this is August and vacation season in the Northern Hemisphere. People will return. I think encouraging selected nominators to come back and review is an excellent idea, and perhaps an encouraging note on talk pages during the post-promotion glow of success wouldn't go astray, personalised, if possible. Are the WikiProjects sick of us yet, in terms of notifying them of demotion candidates? If not, I suggest we identify a few project pages and within them a few active editors. Potential reviewers need to be reminded that they can provide their critical advice on just one criterion, if that is their preference. For example, some reviewers might find they can make a real difference here by commenting just on visual appearance and formatting (especially the tables). A copyright person might be found at WP:NFC. Prose people come from examining the history pages of lists in the most common topics. People are often flattered if they are specifically "targeted".

IMO, it's better if the Directors play only a marginal role on the nomination pages, to maintain their distance and thus their ability to comport themselves without the appearance of COI. See Sandy and Karanacs at FAC.

I find nothing wrong in principle with making nominations wait longer, or resubmit, where there are insufficient reviewers to form a consensus. This is explicitly written into the FAC instructions, and if not stated here, needs to be. Promotion is a great privilege, and the process should not be treated as a fix-it service. Tony (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Dear [Username],

Congratulations on the promotion of [FLC title]. We were impressed with the way you handled the process, and wonder whether you'd consider revisiting FLC as a reviewer, whether occasionally or regularly. If you're interested in doing so, you may be inclined to review on the basis of one or more explicit FLC criteria; most reviewers do not try to cover every single criterion in their reviews. Experiencing the process from the other side often provides insights into how to produce further nominations yourself. We hope you might drop by."

Somthing like that? Tony (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

@Tony1: Sounds good. I like it.

@Matthewedwards: I wasn't actually thinking of something as complicated as a color system and I wouldn't mind if whoever updates the backlog decided at their own discretion. - The underlying problem I have with the backlog is that it often (sometimes exclusively) contains FLCs which don't actually need further reviews: FLCs with several supports, just waiting to be promoted; FLCs with a lot of opposition, waiting to be failed; FLCs with sufficient reviews which are still being addressed... Maintaining a backlog that one has to crawl through first to find where work actually still needs to be done is (obviously?) not the best way to attract reviewers. If, for example, old FLCs without unaddressed comments and without sufficient supporters, would be listed in a separate column, that would be a huge improvement from where I'm standing. Goodraise 08:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed the FLC urgents box to the FLCs that really need reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(→) I just want to mention that I much rather have MatthewEdwards the Reviewer, than MatthewEdwards the Director. Matthew, I am not saying you're a bad director, you're just a much better reviewer.--Cheetah (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. iMatthew ^talk at 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I think the same, actually. But even if I decided to, which I haven't, now is not a good time for me to step down as Scorpion and TRM aren't really around. Besides that, I know what the majority of the Wikipedia community thinks of the Featured list process, and we've had a revolving door of directors and delegates at FLC and FLRC basically since we installed them that doesn't help its image. Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe its time for a new delegate? In that way Matt can help us out, if you agree Matt. But I will try and review those on the backlog when I can, just to let the community know, but not review every incoming FLC.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure if you mean Matthewedwards can help us out reviewing, or I could help us out doing closures? If you mean the first, I'd like to see Matthewedwards review more too. If he does, I'd be willing to find time twice a week (maybe once) to do closures at FLC too. If you mean the second, like I just said, I'd be willing to find time to do them. iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 00:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant Matthewedwards.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok! Well, if Matthewedwards starts reviewing, TRM keeps reviewing, Scorpion is inactive, and Sephiroth is inactive, that leaves me being the only one around to do both FLC and FLRC closures. So, if Matthewedwards were to start reviewing again, it might be best to wait until Scorpion is active again, so I don't have to do all of that work! :P iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out with closures at FLRC, if absolutely necessary. Obviously, making me a director/delegate for FLC would not be much use. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why is Sephiroth still an FLRC delegate when he hasn't been editing for about two months? I also agree that there should be another delegate at FLC (probably iMatthew or Dabomb), just for the fact that Scorpion and TRM are rarely active, and to relieve all the work Matthewedwards has to do. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No point taking him out, in the case that he does return; school and college has resumed or will start soon, so that will bring back editors. Further to that point, June–August, usually the vacation period in the Northern Hemisphere, is usually slow for reviewing. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I could probably do closures since I won't be reviewing anymore.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(I outdented your comment, Truco, hope that's okay). Thanks to everyone who's offered to do step up and do closures but I'd like Scorpion and TRM to comment here also before we start considering that. From what Scorp's told me and a couple of other people, he may not be around much in the fall and may not want to continue here, but he hasn't made a decision. As I said, I'd like to stop the spinning door -- I know from previous discussions around Wikipedia that it doesn't look good for us. For myself, moving back to reviewing and stepping down is something I may consider a few months down the line, especially if Scorpion does step down. If he doesn't, I may consider it sooner. Still, I find we're going off on a tangent from the original question. Should we keep nominations open longer when it seems like a consensus hasn't been reached in the hope of getting more reviews, or archive them? Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep them open when having no consensus, or restart the nomination if there are too many reviews, with no consensus. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks. Apologies for not being very active in FLC as of late, but I've been traveling and busy. I wish I could say I will be more active come September, but I honestly don't know (it depends on how my classes are). I don't really like the idea of appointing a new delegate because we already have two directors and one delegate. I think we should wait until September and see what things are like, then decide (However, should popular opinion be that we need a new director/delegate, I would be willing to step down and allow one to be appointed). As for the original question, back in the good old days, I often archived FLCs solely because of a lack of reviews, and that wasn't particularily popular and I eventually stopped doing it (although to be fair, I was also able to stop because we had more regular reviewers). I think they should be left open and given time, but sometimes FLCs do benefit from having a new nomination (such as in instances where there is a lot of text and discussion, some reviewers tend to avoid those ones). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Closures

Can one of the 3 directors/delegates do some closures today? A lot of nominations are either ready to be promoted or failed. It takes about 30 seconds for me to load WP:FLC...I know that those FLRC nominations are part of this, as well. Anyway, I thought having 3 people do the closures would actually benefit the project, but I think I was wrong. Same thing is going on at WP:FLRC, where 3 delegates are present, but none of them did anything in the last 8 days.--Cheetah (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have boldly closed a couple if I hadn't reviewed them... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure at least one of our directors/delegates will be active in the next 24 hours. Remember that there is no deadline on Wikipedia. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That too, and I remember back in October when the FLC nomination list regularly approached 50 FLCs; these days, it stays between 20 and 35. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My fault for nothing being done at FLRC. I'll try to do them soon. iMatthew ^talk at 22:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'll get on some this afternoon Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

FLRC is  Done. iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 00:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thank both Matthews here. The page is back to normal. I remember times when the FLCs were approaching 50, but at that time the reviews weren't as long as they are today. Today's reviews have more comments.--Cheetah (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That can be a good thing or bad. In October, a large percentage of the FLCs came from a few users: Gary King and his awards lists, Sephiroth BCR and his anime, Nobel and film award lists, etc. Kind of boring to review, but those users were FL veterans and knew exactly how to make their lists meet the criteria. These days, we have more variety in nominations and nominators, which means we also have more unprepared nominations that sap reviewer resources and make longer FLC pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with a closure

Above it says that List of WWE Hardcore Champions failed its FLC. How? It has two supports and one oppose? That seems to indicate a promote rather than a fail.--WillC 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many supports one list has. It was failed because there were unresolved issues raised by GaryColemanFan.--Cheetah (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought not all comments must be resolved if the nominators believe that they will not improve the article.--WillC 01:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the FLC, it seemed to be an issue of one editor's opinion against another's. It's probably best to hash that issue out at WT:PW before renominating. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion to add those reigns is still continuing and only one editor has had a problem with the way they were added. The rest have a problem with the company's ideas. I don't see why one editor's opinion should make this list fail when it passes all the criteria and the consensus seems to be promote. I suggest it be restarted, rather than fail.--WillC 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that one editor's opinion was in the minority against a group of other opinions. The problem is that if there was a legitimate concern that remained unaddressed, therefore Matthewedwards could not have passed it. Once a full consensus is made, feel free to adjust the article to meet the consensus' agreement and renominate it. iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if the nominator does not believe that a concern will improve the article, if it is correct, etc he/she does not have to abide by the reviewer's wishes. There was plenty of discuss on it not only on the FLC subpage but also at WT:PW.--WillC 13:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when!? Do you remember that whole OOU thing? No PW editor liked it or thought it would improve the article, but since the reviewers wanted it, we went with it. What's different with this situation? iMatthew ^{talk • take my poll} at 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of discussions that was never actually settled with anything resembling consensus, it just petered out instead of being resolved. Definitly gives the impression that there is some kind of content dispute between the members of WP:PW yet to be resolved.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Have discussions ever stayed on subject on WT:PW? At the moment there is talk of errors, but there has been no proof to back up the claims there are errors presented.--WillC 14:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the FLC closure discussion.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  14:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well since Mshake3 opposed based on them, they are relevant.--WillC 16:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's not, what WP:PW generally does nor does not do is not really relevant here, the specific discussion is relevant and it's either ongoing or unresolved just like the discussion on the FLC.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of the discussion, not WP:PW's actions.--WillC 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the discussion that is STILL ongoing today, I'd say it's fair to state that there is content dispute here.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)