Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

FLC List of Israel State Cup winners

Hi everyone, There is a Featured list candidates of List of Israel State Cup winners. People with experience in WP, please have a look and apply your concerns, Support, or Oppose. Thank you. Please note: have you say before it closes with Stale nomination.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Help?

I asked over at WP:TV a while ago, but nothing came of it, so I figure regulars here would also know how to answer this. I recently started working on a draft version of List of writers of The X-Files, which can be seen here. I really think I've bitten off more than I can chew here—citing individual episode credits is going to result in several hundred footnotes, with many of those cited several times; although I've managed to alleviate some need for this thanks to an index page in one of the print sources, which only covers two and a half seasons. Does this kind of thing actually need to be cited, though? Given that each of the episodes is linked and provides full credits, or redirects to a season article which does so, I'm wondering if there's that much need to cite this one. Also, the initial "summary" table is too long and narrow—I'd ideally like to split it in two and sit them side by side, so it takes up a greater width and lesser height; however, my attempt to do this based on nesting two tables within a larger table just plain didn't work. Does anyone else know how this might be achieved? Any help here would be appreciated. GRAPPLE X 20:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Relying on linked articles to provide sources is not enough for a featured list. You'll get away with it at AfD though. Even for featured status, you do not have to provide in-line citations for every bit of information as long as it remains clear, where the information can be found in the provided sources. For example, if your article says writer X wrote episode Y, it may be enough to list a DVD compilation containing episode Y among your references and indicating that episode Y can be found in that compilation. As for your table problem, I'd advise against using nested tables. They do more harm than good. Have you thought about making it wider by adding more content? Goodraise 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered just using twice as many columns and repeating the headings that way, though it would lose the option of sorting then. Not a big loss I guess. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about using DVDs, though—would citing, for instance, all first season writing credits to the following work?

The X-Files: The Complete First Season (Media notes). Fox. {{cite AV media notes}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |director= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |titlelink= ignored (|title-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |titleyear= ignored (help) Contains the episodes "Pilot", "Deep Throat", "Squeeze", "Conduit", "The Jersey Devil", "Shadows", "Ghost in the Machine", "Ice", "Space", "Fallen Angel", "Eve", "Fire", "Beyond the Sea", "Gender Bender", "Lazarus", "Young at Heart", "E.B.E.", "Miracle Man", "Shapes", "Darkness Falls", "Tooms", "Born Again", "Roland", "The Erlenmeyer Flask"

Or would it be better to leave off the list of titles? Since the booklet inserts contain the episode credits I could probably add page references and cite them that way, if that would seem cleaner. GRAPPLE X 23:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can use in-line citations to booklets containing the credits, just forget what I said above and leave the titles off. No point in burdening yourself with things you probably won't ever need. Depending on how easy the information is to find in those booklets, you may not even have to give page numbers. Goodraise 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You're looking at about 22–28 pages depending on the season, with two episodes' credit per page. I'll give page references at first to see how it looks. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 01:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have added the seventh season based on the booklet with page number references. I think this looks like the cleanest way to cite everything, so I'll work through them all this way. How does it look to you, though? GRAPPLE X 01:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

possiblity of an FL for a list of compounds?

Would it be possible to build an FL for a list of chemical compounds?

As here: difluoride.

Or is it too hard because of the number of them? (do you have to have every compound known to man in that class...and then too much red? Can you just not link them to get around the red limit?)

At least if you did binary compounds would be doable, no?

We have nothing like this now, btw.

TCO (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists need to be comprehensive, but not necessarily complete. So, in principle, I don't see why not. But I can't promise you that it won't be necessary to create stub articles for a great deal of notable compounds to satisfy reviewers that your list meets this particular criterion. However, I have to advise against setting out to create a featured list when you're not yet sure how you want that article to look when it's done. Don't think of the article as a list article. Just improve it. If it turns out to be a list, great. If it doesn't, head over to WP:FAC. Goodraise 23:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You probably may want to create the inclusion criteria for the list and see how well they work. I'd urge caution about the inclusion of every possible organic compound, as there are potentially an almost limitless number of these, such as the progression from methyl difluoride to ethyl difloride (2 isomers) and beyond with longer alkyl chains (and increasingly larger number of isomers). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is List of compounds, which is really a disambig page to List of inorganic compounds, List of organic compounds and List of biomolecules. I'm not really sure what you are suggesting, TCO. —Andrew_stalk 07:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking of subjects like difluoride, tetrafluoride, etc. If you compare it to State reptile, I would imagine a much shorter text section (perhaps just a lead instead of the basically whole article I had in there). There would be a table using a lot of the tricks from SR (sortability, very nice for the reader here). Obviously some thinking about the fields, but name (wikilinked), formula, structure (very nice, can see commonalities),refs, maybe metal vs nonmetal, maybe a few others like MP or BP (have to be selective). Maybe have a cute icon for when it is a liquid or a gas. A picture of the structure or the actual chemical (not sure which or both). Sort of the like the map trick, I was going to blow you all away with on Turtles of Texas. Probably need a little more discussion of the fields preceding the table than in SR where they were self explanatory, but that is fine, Rexx loves that. Probably a fair amount of nb notes for little nuances, but that is fine too.

I'm actually pretty sure I can make something very attractive and somewhat new to Wiki. Inclusion criteria is a little tricky, I might keep it to binary compounds to keep the organics out. If I thought the reader was better served to keep them, would do so and just skip the star. But they're really pretty different content (not crystalline). More like a dab relation. You all actually have only two FLs in chemistry. None are anything like this. It's actually pretty cool content to have as when I was looking at this content to write a para on each di tri etc fluoride for the fluorine article, I ended up creating the initial lists and clicking a lot of the individual articles and really wanted some sort of spreadsheet with their xtal structures or the like to see where trends were.

TCO (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

TFL beats TFA!

Hello all, just a quick note to let you know that WP:Today's featured list beat WP:Today's featured article on page views yesterday! The SuperBowl's MVP list racked up 61,287 hits against the 59,243 hits Prince Louis of Battenberg saw. Although we were a little slow updating the blurb, this is a great achievement for the project, in particular our listy bit of it. Well done to all involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Great news. We were also around 23,000 hits up on what the list got last year, which is a good benchmark for future big-hitters. —WFC— 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I too was disappointed with the update speed, this is a clear indication that this process can produce content that people are interested in. Can't wait to see what other lists on popular topics do in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Time for some changes at FLC

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the FLC process. I think that it's inefficient in various ways and that it can be improved. Several attempts at writing a suitably short text to present my entire line of reasoning have failed already. To explain it all, I'd have to write half a novel, outlining my reading of the complex psychological and technical interactions between number of reviewers, efficiency of use of reviewer time, number of nominators, number of nominations, time nominations stay open, common practice in the reviewing process, common practice in the closing process, efficiency of use of director time, etc. But you're all smart people and this isn't rocket science, so I think I'd rather stop torturing myself trying to do that and spare you all a long, boring, and probably not actually that helpful read and instead just produce a list of changes to the process I think would be beneficial. If there's questions, I can always answer them later, can't I?

Here's the list. Please consider that not all of them are meant to work independently. Some of them would actually be harmful if implemented alone.

• Encourage nominators and reviewers to read guidelines and policies linked from WP:WIAFL.
• Require nominators to state that they are familiar with those guidelines.
• Stop asking nominators to review other lists. Encourage them to do so, but don't expect it.
• Encourage especially new and potential reviewers to weigh-in on disagreements between nominators and reviewers.
• Provide a mechanism for nominators and reviewers to request that kind of participation.
• Increase the minimum support required for promotion.
• Set a maximum time for FLCs to stay open. (I suggest 15 days.)
• Set a cool-down time. (I suggest a minimum of 14 days before renomination.)
• Close as failed as soon as there is consensus that a list does not meet the criteria. Don't wait for things to be fixed.
• Discourage the practice of opposing implicitly. (A reviewer who sees a list as failing the criteria at the time of the review should oppose explicitly.)
• Create some sort of award (e.g. "1/5/10/... FLCs successful on first try").
• Encourage oldest FLCs to be reviewed first. (One way to do that would be placing new nominations at the bottom.)
• Exchange the "Nominations urgently needing reviews" dumpster with a queue for new nominations. (Directors or delegates decide how many FLCs can be "active" at a given time based on the level of participation and new nominations are only opened for discussion after older ones are closed.)
• Allow for only one FLC per editor in the queue or activity.
• Reward nominators of FLCs promoted timely and with little friction with additional slots in the queue.
• Introduce a presumption of failure. (It should be the nominator's responsibility to convince the community of a list's excellence, not a reviewer's responsibility to prove that a list is flawed. Likewise, what "actionable concerns" are should be decided through discussion among reviewers (and nominators), not by the directors. FLCs should be discussions, not court sessions.)

Of course I don't expect all of these to be implemented, but the process is going downhill. We need to do something, whatever that something turns out to be. Goodraise 22:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these comments are useful and should be reasonably simply and non-controversial to implement. I was kind of hoping for more comment on the actual content of FLs themselves, but in any case, yes, we should look at streamlining the overall nomination process. Perhaps you could draft up some replacement words for the instructions we currently have that would make it less ambiguous under your proposed approach as to what will happen for a given nomination? Not too keen on "rewarding" editors, that will no doubt end in conflict (or perceived conflict of interest at least), reversing the listings is innovative but contrary to all other processes I'm aware of of Wikipedia so not a brilliant move. I don't think we've ever "asked" nominators to review other lists, I believe we've always "encouraged", but there's a fine line between those so perhaps we've overstepped it. I had (in the past) a "quick-fail" category to archive lists which were immediately and obviously lacking in what was needed, it became deprecated, and I think a lack of decent peer review means that we will always have trouble expecting lists to be up-to-scratch before nomination. Max time/renomination time is implicit (and down to the discretion of the directors) but prescribing each is a little Draconian (in my mind) but perhaps what we need to tighten things up... Just my opening thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

My only real objection would be having a hard maximum time period. FAC tries to avoid being a second peer review, and it's therefore more reasonable to set strict timelines there. At FLC we accept that a lot of nominations will be PR-like, and therefore some noms will take longer, particularly where there isn't an established standard for a specific type of list. Besides, a lot of the time delays are at the reviewer's end – most nominators that I've come across tend to get work done pretty quickly. —WFC— 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As for "cool-down" periods, it depends why the list was not promoted. If they're archived for lack of input a delay makes no sense; if they're archived because there are substantial unresolved concerns I'd argue 14 days isn't long enough. —WFC— 23:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem I think exists at FLC, is that there are not enough reviewers. If this was solved then the problem about the length of time FLCs are open for would also be solved. For me this is the crux of the issue, more reviewers will result in a more efficient process. This has been an issue for a while now, and i'm not sure how it can be addressed. I agree nominators should be encouraged to review other lists, but this should not be a prerequisite as it could put users off nominating a list. The directors do a stellar, especially reviewing, as you review them all thoroughly, but n majority of cases, they are the only ones who have reviewed the lists. Some way needs to be found to entice more reviewers to FLC, perhaps the exposure TFL creates for FLC will aid this, only time will tell. NapHit (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@TRM: I didn't comment on the actual content of FLs because I think the best tool to raise article quality in the long run is smoothly working review processes. If we get up efficiency here, improvements in article space will follow naturally. As for replacement words, I'm already on it.

@WFC: Us accepting FLCs turning into peer reviews is part of what I see going wrong. Of course our situation is different. The people here are the best qualified to peer review list articles. However, what we have here is a nomination environment, which means tension is higher than desirable for a peer review. Shortening review periods would counter-intuitively reduce tension, because a failed nomination would become less of a big deal. As for cool-down periods, they are one of my suggestions which aren't "meant to work independently" and "would actually be harmful if implemented alone." The main point of introducing a queue for new nominations (wherein they would not be commented on) is to focus available reviewer attention on a lower number of lists and hopefully eliminating the need to close any nominations for lack of input. Goodraise 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@NapHit: I too used to believe that we don't have enough reviewers, just like every other review process on the project. I no longer think so. We simply flush reviewer time down the toilet. We need to find ways (and my suggestions go in that direction) to tap into unused potentials. One such potential I see in "lazy" nominators, who would be capable of writing top quality lists all on their own, but don't because it's more convenient to go to FLC early and let the reviewers do the work for them. "Triple crowns", "bronze stars", and so forth are a great motivation for no small portion of FLC nominators. By creating some sort of award ourselves and giving preferential treatment to users who take some work off our hands by closely reading guidelines and examining their own lists for details to improve, we should be able to lower our reviewer time requirements. Goodraise 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Goodraise. I agree with what you say about the bigger picture being far more important than how one element of it looks on the surface. I also think the general direction of travel of your suggestions could work. I'd therefore second TRM's idea that you draft an alternative set of instructions. —WFC— 01:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@NapHit. I agree with Goodraise. I think we do have the right balance of reviewers and nominators (even if we don't, what can we do about it?). Either way, focussing on using what we have more intelligently seems the way to go. —WFC— 01:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the comments have merit in my opinion, and some I disagree with. I'll list my thoughts on them below:

• I have no issue with the first two points, but I sure hope nominators and reviewers are familiar with FL standards. If they're not, we're in trouble.
• "Stop asking nominators to review lists. Encourage them to do so, but don't expect it." As a process, we don't ask nominators for reviews, like DYK does (which I despise). Not sure where this idea that we expect reviews came from.
• "Increase the minimum support required for promotion." In a perfect world I'd be all for this, but it's not and I'm not convinced we have the reviewers to pull this off. I have no problem with saying 4+ supports will be a de facto level for promotion, but everyone involved will have to understand that the process will take longer as a result. Speaking of length...
• I'm strongly against a mandatory time limit, especially one as penal as 15 days. At our present rate, we might get one or two lists a month to pass. We just don't have enough reviews coming in to get lists through that quickly.
• The idea of a cool-down period is one that I support. Lists that obviously aren't ready for promotion shouldn't be rushed back into FLC; also, FAC has such a rule, and theirs is still stricter than this would be (it applies to nominators, not lists). My only caveat is that this should be subject to directors' discretion, like at FAC (they have delegate discretion).
• We already try to quickly close lists that clearly have a consensus against promotion. There have been fewer and fewer of these closures lately, which I take as a sign that most lists are well-prepared before being nominated.
• I don't believe that people oppose implicitly when they offer a batch of comments. They likely think that a list is close to FL-worthy and just needs some tweaks to get there. FAC is similar in this regard, in that a lot of non-opposers add comments when they think an article is close.
• No more awards, please. We have enough on this website already, and getting a list to FL status should be reward enough for those who care about the quality of the content they produce.
• I don't think placing old noms on top would help. It's not like the new noms on top get that many more reviews. In fact, that's a large part of the problems FLC is having in processing lists; none of the ones at the top get that close to promotion, and they mostly wind up sinking to the bottom of the page. It's rare now to see a list that doesn't get put in the backlog section.
• I hate to reveal all of the secrets of us FL directors, but we already have a method of controlling the size of FLC: closing FLCs when the number of them active gets to be too high. Personally, I'm more inclined to be lenient in closing old FLCs when the total number is around 25–30, as opposed to the 40 we sometimes have. You don't need a queue (which will really drive potential nominators away) to keep some control over FLC's size.
• Have no issue with one FLC per editor, although again I think director discretion should be allowed. There are always exceptions to whatever rules we conceive (that's why we have this.
• We already have a presumption of failure at FLC; if a list doesn't garner sufficient support during its review period, it doesn't get promoted. And we do listen to the opinions of reviewers when deciding if comments are actionable. If I have multiple reviewers telling me they disagree strongly with someone's suggestions, or supporting after criticisms have been made, that is taken into account, to a certain extent. Does that automatically mean something with opposition will get promoted when others disagree with it? Of course not. Every situation is different, and the other reviewers' opinions could be questionable too. That's why directors here and at FAC have the duty to not treat the processes like vote counts, and to weigh each reviewer's opinion. It's not an easy job in the best of times, and certainly not when participation is apparently declining.

All in all, I think the FL process itself is fairly sound, but a few adjustments might be in order. The biggest is not included in the list of suggestions, though others have brought it up. We need more reviewers, and we need them desperately. That would alleviate many of the issues FLC is dealing with now. I'd add the suggestion of toughening up on our image reviewing, since that's a major weak spot at the moment. Also, I've never been a fan of the Older nominations heading on FLC and think that it's failing to drive reviewers to older lists as intended. I wouldn't mind ditching it and letting the chips fall where they may. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As requested, here's a first draft. Will reply to Giants later. Goodraise 05:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the whole that draft is pretty coherent. That said, I still think 15 days is far too low. It would place too much of a burden on reviewers, many of whom see reviewing as giving a bit back rather than the area they want to spend their time on. I think a hard maximum number of lists is a better way of doing it, as it would incentivise people with work in the queue to review. As for the renomination rule, if directors were to distinguish "lack of input" closures from "consensus against promotion" ones, we could add a manditory cool-off period for premature lists, and simply put the ones that lacked input back into the queue. Speaking of the queue, I'd suggest making the paragraph beginning "Before a new nomination enters..." more prominent – the reality is that most people give instructions a cursory glance. {{yet to be implemented}} is a nice idea, but ironically one that I think would only be necessary if these discussions come to nothing. Reforms along these lines would keep the number of reviews small enough for it to be redundant. —WFC— 05:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I still have reservations about the "on hold" aspect of a candidate, I advocated "quick fail" a few years back, which subsequently was deprecated, but it didn't (and doesn't) stop directors or delegates from removing a list in a speedy fashion. I wouldn't suggest we add this feature, but I would suggest that directors/delegates are stricter and quicker to act by removing clearly inappropriate nominations. I'm not convinced about the {{yet to be implemented}} template proposal. Unless I missed it, FAC doesn't use such a concept, what I think we need to encourage is more review, more honesty and more understanding of WP:WIAFL including subtle things like manual of style issues. One thing we should be proud of is our adherence to the technical standards required of featured content. I've reviewed a few FACs lately and they have all failed (in my opinion) on technical issues that we just consider "part of the day job" here at FLC. We could learn from one another! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true. For instance, Sandy has pointed out several times that FAC does have a workable "quick-fail" mechanism. It involves reviewers opposing bad nominations quickly. —WFC— 21:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Giants:

The closure log reads "If you nominate your own list, please review at least one other..." Granted, it's not in the instructions. Nevertheless, it will make anyone reading it feel obligated to do so.

Your concerns over increasing the minimum support required is justified. However, I think we can attract additional reviewers by making the job less demanding. To reviewers so dedicated to the process that they tackle every nomination anyway (my deepest respect to anyone managing to do that consistently, by the way) may not see that problem, but those less eager to babysit de facto peer reviews potentially for month may well be deterred by the prospect. Also, we may get more opinions out of fewer reviewers that way.

One reason for me to suggest cool-down periods is to create an incentive for nominators to do their own reviewing more thoroughly. I'm all for director discretion in this regard, but long cool-down times should be the default with directors capable of reducing them, though hopefully doing so will become unnecessary if the changes I'm proposing prove nearly as effective as I hope.

The reduced number of nominations closed as failed quickly may indeed mean that nominators come better prepared, though I can think of several other explanations. Reviewers may have become more indulgent and reluctant to oppose. The slower speed at which reviews hit nominations may give nominators more time to sway early reviewers. And we may have scared off nominators who don't savor the prospect of waiting month for reviews to come in and having their nominations closed as no consensus anyway.

I'm not a mind reader. I don't know what a non-opposer thinks of a list, but I suspect most of the time if they were asked whether the reviewed list should be promoted right then, they'd have to say no. If more reviewers were to explicitly oppose when lists are near ready, we'd be able to focus more quickly on lists that are ready.

I roughly share your view on awards, though perhaps mine is somewhat more pragmatic. Anything that motivates editors to create quality content is good in my book. And anything that motivates nominators to take work off reviewer hands by coming more prepared is even better. Still, I'm not married to any of those suggestions and this is the one I'm least fond off.

Putting old nominations on top may very well not work out as effective as I hope. Maybe a sentence in the instructions would do a better job at motivating reviewers to go at older nominations first, but I doubt that somewhat.

Your fears regarding the queue for new nominations I don't share. Waiting can be frustrating in any form, but in queue form it would be more predictable and therefore less daunting, but we're both speculating here, aren't we? Only trying it would tell us what works better. WFC also has a good point, I think, suggesting that the queue approach would incentivize queued nominators to review, even more so if we went for a fixed number of active reviews.

I realize that the number of nominations can be kept low by aggressive closing, but the downside of that is that it causes individual reviewers' opinions to be given more weight, opinions of reviewers such as myself whose inclination to oppose may not at all reflect consensus view as it could become apparent if more editors were to comment. Most importantly, aggressive closing increases the number of "no consensus for lack of input" results, which in my opinion is the most discouraging outcome a nominator can get.

Since you brought up IAR, its existence is to me only more reason to create hard limits and "darconian" rules. The combination allows for predictable procedures without sacrificing flexibility.

In regard to my last suggestion, what I'd like to see is a reduction of the role of directors in the closing process. It's not that I think you guys were doing a bad job at it, it's that I'd prefer to see more exchange of thought between reviewers. The concept of "actionable objections" is to my dislike, for favoring the support side; presently, supporters are not expected to produce any justification for their position. Also, it places objectors in a role similar to that of a prosecutor in a court of law. I believe it would be better to have groups of editors sorting out what arguments have merit, than to place that burden on the individuals closing the nominations. If at all possible, their job should be no more than to determine what consensus is. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not talking abolishment here, just minimization.

Of course getting more reviewers would solve all problems, but I see no easy way of making that happen. As WFC put it, we should "focus[...] on using what we have more intelligently". Goodraise 00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to WFC: The 15 days is just my initial suggestion. How much time would be appropriate in your mind? I'm not sure how you want me to make that passage more prominent. Feel free to hop over and edit that draft yourself. Putting nominations closed for lack of input back into the queue would defeat the purpose of the queue idea. If nominations receive too little input to close in any other way than "no consensus for lack of input", then there's simply too many nominations open. Goodraise 00:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I touched on this in the previous post, and am a bit surer now. The implication of having a queue is that there is an incentive to review other lists. Having a time limit is inconsistent with this, as people who we might have hoped to incentivise could just wait it out, and reviewers who don't like to be rushed might come here less. By contrast, having a limit on the number of lists (for instance 20 or 25) would theoretically mean that a few lists would clog up the system, but would at the same time create an incentive for reviewers and other nominators to deal with such lists. —WFC— 01:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to TRM: I think it's time to stop looking at big bro FAC for things we can and can't do. FLC is a mature process, so much in fact, that its own traditions are beginning to stand in its way. If I may ask, what are your reservations about the "on hold" aspect? And where do you see a lack of honesty? Goodraise 00:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've rephrased the closure log to "encourage" a nominator to review another list. As for FAC, I don't consider it a big bro, it's just another featured process which we can use as a comparison. I'm not sure how "on hold" differs from "quick fail" other than increasing the workload of the directors to review every single list before they're formally listed here. I know Giants and I usually get round to most lists in time, but sometimes it can be a couple of weeks before either of us has a chance to look at one, that would be terribly demoralising for a nominator to have to wait two weeks before an FLC is even listed to the general public. The FLC community are more than knowledgeable enough to determine whether a list should be quick-failed, and I would encourage them to be forthright in their opinions on such ill-prepared lists. As for more honesty, I'm talking about the idea of (1) reviewers making definitive calls (i.e. quick fail not ready because it fails 1, 3a... etc) and (2) nominators using peer reviews (as encouraged in the instructions), copyeditors, perhaps my checklist before making ill-prepared nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I picture it, "on hold" would mean less work for directors. A new nomination would be listed in the queue (which could be implemented simply by using <!-- ... --> tags), where it would stay until a slot opens. Then it'd be moved to the active area without anyone having to look at it. You bring up a very good point though. I hadn't considered the potential demoralization of having to wait in the queue, only to have your nomination "quick"-failed later. Of course my hopes were not to switch waiting times from month on the bottom of the nominations list to month in the queue. There'd be no gain in that. I was hoping to reduce the average time nomination pages take from their creation to closure by making the process more efficient. Anyway, perhaps we can have both: a quick-fail queue, where new nominations would be listed first. Reviewers would be encouraged not to conduct in-depth reviews there, but merely to evaluate a list's readiness for the actual FLC process. Lists not quick-failed would stay in the queue until slots open in the active area. Goodraise 21:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure at all about this "open slot", "additional slot" stuff, it seems to be that it won't be at all transparent to the community and will eventually lead to divisive and probably unpleasant discussion. At the moment, we have a slow but perfectly open process. I would just suggest that we allow nominations per the status quo but encourage reviewers and directors to be more decisive in their initial appraisals. As I said, pointing nominators to a checklist may be useful to avoid all the standard objections most of us point out every single time (that mainly won't be picked up by PR and won't be picked up by reviewers who just say "see this" or "see that". We do need to educate our nominators, whether we like it or not, or we'll just run into the same issues time after time after time, and end up with no nominators and no reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we seem to agree on what should change, though there's something about the notion of "educating nominators" I don't quite like. Anyway, if we can make those changes happen with less drastic adjustments to the process than I've suggested, then I'm all for it. I think we should change the focus of this discussion away from "what not to do" and start figuring out what we can agree upon. A good first step might be changing Wikipedia:Featured list preload in such a way that it reminds nominators of all the things they should do before submitting a list. There's a big difference between skimming over some wall of instruction text and placing one's signature behind an assertion of having done one's homework. Goodraise 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's incredbily naive to think that nominators will read the preload notice any more than they would read the boilerplate instructions. My idea of "educating" nominators is not intended to be sinister or schoolmaster-like. I just think, for instance, if they looked at the checklist to get an idea of the sort of things that will be pointed out before they nominate, the quality of FLCs will immediately improve. Placing four tildes means nothing to most people, it certainly won't reflect the fact that a nominator has done any "homework". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you want to "educate" nominators? Count me in. Now, how do we do that? Goodraise 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just got Goodraise's first "quick-fail" check (which made my heart skip a beat as my monitor cut off the edit summary right after "quick-fail" but before "check") - I like it, but wanted to verify- you're going by TRM's suggestion above to say "quick fail check: fails criteria blah blah" to screen out lists that are obviously too far away from meeting criteria? (Also, thanks for the image check). --PresN 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I figured until someone actually points out that they checked, others might waste time doing it again. And I don't think we can afford that. Goodraise 00:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Defining criteria in the lede

Membership in ethnic groups or ethnoreligious groups is not always clear - for example, is Ralph Nader, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from Asia (specifically Lebanon) Asian American? Is Khaled Hosseini (born in Afghanistan)? Bobby Jindal (parents from the Punjab)? Jehan Mubarak (born in America, lives in Sri Lanka)? Abraham Walkowitz (born in Siberia)? Similarly, it's not always clear if an individual is African-American - is Jennifer Beals? Tiger Woods? Rashida Jones? Vin Diesel? Should lists, therefore, particularly those about ethnic or ethnoreligious groups, explicitly define their criteria for inclusion in the lede? For example, should List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients have statement in their ledes such as "This list defines an African-American as..." or "This list defines an Asian-American as..."? Or should they simply rely on what reliable sources say? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If potentially ambiguous from the title of the list (which shouldn't be allowed), there should be a clear statement of what constitutes inclusion criteria, irrelevant of what type of list it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Legolas

According to his talk page, he had quite a few Featured lists: I hope you all are aware of this investigation into falsification of sources, where per our look at his two Featured articles, also extends to failed verification and close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Here they are:

• Madonna albums discography
• Madonna singles discography
• Madonna videography
• List of Madonna concert tours
• List of awards and nominations received by Madonna

User:Legolas2186 names the same pages as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations, so these should be all. Goodraise 07:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't check the paper sources but a lot of the journal sources that weren't linked check out fine on mirrors of Billboard etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My editing time has been somewhat limited of late, but rest assured that I'm not overlooking this. What I read at the RSN thread is very concerning, to say the least. I don't want to open a bunch of FLRCs on a whim, but the evidence presented is hard to ignore. If I can get some time in the near-future (questionable), I want to do some spot-checks of my own, particularly for magazine articles sourced to paper copies; these seem to be where many of the problems stem from. I have access to online databases through a college library, so I should be able to check at least some articles. I'd like to ask that this not be archived until I have a chance to do these checks. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Still haven't had a chance to do checks, but it's still on my list of things to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the first list above, and am massively concerned based on the search that I did. A full rundown of what I saw can be found at User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. I encourage people here to read what I wrote there and come to their own conclusions. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: the second FL linked above doesn't have any of the offline magazine-type cites that were problematic in the albums discography, and the offline Billboard cite in the third FL checks out on Google Books (I wasn't able to check the offline Video Librarian story). This doesn't mean that all of the sourcing in those lists is automatically fine, but it is good that there don't appear to be any completely fabricated cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

TFL beats TFA part deux

We did it again, just! 1st Academy Awards saw 18,904 hits, a handful more than John McCauley who got 18,815. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sortable stackable tables

Hey all, a couple of weeks ago User:Bobliveson converted Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation (FL) from this (how it was promoted) to it's current state, where years are combined but it's still sortable by year (which I didn't know was possible). My questions are two-fold- is the new style still acceptable from an WP:ACCESS standpoint? And two, when you re-sort by year it no longer keeps the winner at the top of the year's entries- does anyone know a good way to fix that? Thanks! --PresN 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Having rowspans makes for a poorer experience in some user agents. It's not a big loss in accessibility, but there are a couple of examples at User:RexxS/Accessibility to give you some idea. Of course, you also lose the functionality of the winner sorting apart from the other nominees. The way to fix it is restore the version that was more accessible and functional (edit the diff that you gave and save it with summary "restore last good version"). --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That was added maybe three or four months ago whan WP updated thier tables code, they also added the option which you can sort more than one column using the shift in your keyboard and pressing the second column you wish to sort.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. :o I had no clue this existed. Nice. Not sure I'll use it much but anything helps. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Muhammed list withdrawn

Just a quick note for the powers that be, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of expeditions of Muhammad/archive1 was withdrawn by the nominator. However I'm fairly sure he has not withdrawn it correctly, thought I'd leave this here so one of the directors can do it properly, cheers. NapHit (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit, I've done the rest of the stuff. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour: GA or FL?

I recently nominated The Legally Prohibited from Being Funny on Television Tour for FL, but Giants2008 thinks it might be more appropriate for GA. What are everyone's thoughts? I'll put it through wherever people think it best fits. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to straddle that line between list and article, in that it is an article about the tour and a list of appearances. To be honest, I don't see any reason why a list couldn't be put through the GA process and the FL process—there are, for instance, articles on television seasons that are Featured Lists, and ones that are Good Articles (The Simpsons (season 1) versus The X-Files (season 1) for instance), and if one of those GA seasons were brought to FLC, I would be surprised if it were turned away when others like it were not; perhaps this list could be brought through GA first and then taken to FLC afterwards in order to makes its FL candidacy that bit smoother. But if the actual quality of the article isn't an issue then I'd be fine seeing it at FLC. Then again, I'm far from versed in the matter. GRAPPLE X 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. List articles are articles too. So far our we-take-what-they-don't-want approach has worked out fine. When an article is on the line, go to WP:GAN and WP:FAC first. Goodraise 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Based on this, I'm taking that I should nominate for GA and withdraw the FLC? Or leave it idle in case GA reviewers determine it's a list? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

At this point, leave it, but if it's archived for not meeting featured criteria, then run it through GA as a step before returning. GRAPPLE X 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as there have not yet been any content related comments at the FLC, I don't see the harm in withdrawing. The last thing we want is a big debate over what is and what isn't a list. Offer it to the people at FAC. If they don't want it, we'll take it. Goodraise 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is purely by feel, but this feels like a GA rather than an FL to me. I know we have concert tours as lists, but somehow that kind of event feels more article'y to me (as the list, while large, isn't as important a component as it is in say listing episodes of a TV season). Staxringold _talk^contribs 12:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I was comparing this to 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft, which I had initially submitted to GAN, only to be told to bring it here. They're both similiarly on the fence regarding article vs. list. I guess in the future I'll always take my half article half lists to GAN first, and bring them here if directed. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Today's featured list is approaching its first birthday!!

Hello all. Our first "proper" TFL (List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders) appeared on the main page on 13 June 2011, coming up for a year ago. When we discussed the viability of lists of the main page, it was a pretty big deal, we ended up redesigning WP:MAIN, but thanks to the dedication of our project, we've made a pretty good attempt at making our little section of the main page on a Monday our own. So, given that we didn't break anything (so far), I was wondering if we should think about going two times a week? We have a stack of good lists waiting and we have, on occasion, beaten WP:TFA for viewing stats, so technically there's no reason why not. I'd encourage all here to read WFC's ideas on how we nominate our TFL's and control the whole process; that can be found at here. But initially, I'd like to hear from anyone if they believe we can be a two-days-a-week charm? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're comfortable with the existing workload, and satisfied that sub-standard lists aren't ending up on the main page, then there's no real reason not to expand to two days. I think some of my ideas would help streamline that workload though, which in turn would help us if we want to expand further in future. —WFC— 21:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the workload is okay right now and I agree, we need to look more into streamlining it perhaps per your suggestions. As for sub-standard lists ending up on the main page, well that's really not for me to call, it would be good to get some additional feedback on this issue. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In life I've found that a good way to gauge progress is to seek the opinion of your fiercest critic. On the issue of quality it might make sense to actively seek out "critics", as if there are any problems it would be better to try to address them on a one-to-one basis, away from the limelight/bearpit of Main Page talk. Opening up to constructive (if occasionally forceful) criticism worked wonders for DYK – the thing that hurt it was the extent to which its critics felt they needed to raise their proverbial voices before they were listened to. —WFC— 15:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at WFC's page, time permitting. I'm still not convinced that we're clearing enough lists through the TFL process to support two lists a week, but I'm willing to be convinced by evidence suggesting otherwise. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict over recently promoted FL

Hello all. Would like to encourage some FL community input at Talk:Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play where a user is arguing that his version is justifiably better than the version that was promoted to FL just four days ago which I've since restored and requested discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Man, what a wall of text! Only got half through, but looking at the last few paragraphs, it seems the issue is settled, right? Goodraise 12:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Yes, I think there was some confusion that the format the editor in question preferred was nothing like a featured list format. I've tried to explain that to him/her. He/her has decided to drop the subject. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He has no grounds for argument the version that was promoted is far better than his, for starters his version does not comply with MOS:DTT or WP:ACCESS, so definitely a futile argument from him. NapHit (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, apparently not resolved. If anyone cares to contribute to the discussion at that talk page, I'd be grateful. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's obviously enthusiastic about the subject, so I'd say we might be better off trying to channel his energies into working with the other editors. I've tried, but the result is that we could do with some more editors' comments on one of the smaller issues that he raised, where I feel there's room for discussion. I be grateful for anyone who feels able to work with me on this one. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Discography question

I've been considering doing a discography for the Indonesian singer Chrisye, but he never had an international career and Indonesia doesn't have a single national chart. K-Ci & JoJo discography and other similar FLs have chart rankings and several countries represented; would a discography of Chrisye, without these sections, be able to be pass FLC? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Criterion 3a does not require you to add information that doesn't exist. Goodraise 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How much is enough?

Judging by this, there seems to be some sort of minimal number of entries required to qualify for FLC even though there's nothing in the criteria specifying exactly what this number is. What is this magic number and why hasn't it been formally noted in the criteria? As recently as a year and a half ago, I had a successful FLC with only three entries. Why then and not now? New directors/delegates/whatever their titles are, with new ideas as to standards that they're not telling anyone?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous FLC you refer to had nine entries in three tables. The current FLC has four entries in three tables. Speaking just for myself (and not the other directors), the reason there's no "cast-in-stone" minimum number is that it would vary from topic to topic. As far as I'm aware there's been no "new ideas as to standards that [the directors are] not telling anyone". It's just a personal opinion (and don't forget, we work on consensus here, so if there's a community consensus to promote any list then it'll happen. There doesn't seem to be a community consensus for a "good list" concept, and while this nomination is considered by those commenting at the FLC as a "list", I still think it would be a reasonable candidate for WP:GAN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There used to be an informal consensus for a minimum of 10 items. Now we have criterion 3b. Apparently, some reviewers still use some minimum number of items chosen by themselves to decide when to oppose based on 3b. There's little we can do about that, but it would certainly reduce (the fully justified) nominator frustration, if those reviewers were to stop mentioning how many items a list has.

Criterion 3b states that a featured list "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". That's clear and predictable. Obviously, a nominator won't think that their list should be included as part of a related article, but as long as it could be, they have nothing to complain about, if their nomination is opposed. Goodraise 12:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently working on List of protected cruisers of Germany to finish up this topic. Is eight items in three entries enough to be a "list" as you all construct the word? Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Who is "you all"? You should have realized by now that there is no consensus along the line of "X items make a list". I sympathize with your situation; it must be frustrating. However, in the absence of clear guidelines on the matter, you'll have to live with the possibility of 3b or "not a list" opposes. Goodraise 14:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mainly I'm asking the people who opposed the Greek list over the number of items. Naturally the people who thought it was fine will more than likely think this is as well. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion over transcluding from other articles into featured lists

Hello project. Please be aware of a discussion regarding the transclusion of multiple articles into a single featured list candidate, namely List of Friends episodes. There's some talk on the talkpage and at the associated FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I should also add that I suspect that in order to get a consensus one way or another, opinions will need to be given at the list's own talk page. It would seem that even if a consensus is found one way or another at the FLC, that wouldn't be good enough for some. Many thanks, as ever, to all of you for your ongoing efforts at the project! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? It shouldn't be necessary for reviewers to venture out to other pages. If the list violates some guideline, oppose. Or am I missing something here? Goodraise 09:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the transcluded pages have no obligation to meet WP:WIAFL so the list, when transcluding the pages, fails to meet WP:WIAFL. The nominator created a standalone list which was very much in line with WP:WIAFL but it was reverted by User:AussieLegend and partially so by User:George Ho who seem to believe that transcluding from the season pages is the only way this list can be written. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Resignation

Hello FLC regulars and TFLers etc. In the light of the heat generated from the List of Friends episodes debacle (now currently going through dispute resolution at DRN, I'd like to proffer my resignation as FL director and TFL organiser. It's clear to me that I'm no longer as detached as I should be, (e.g. the FA process has a very detached director who seldom is involved with content etc) and as such it's probably best if I leave it to others and revert to being just a reviewer. Just to be clear, it's not some kind of hissy fit developed from this specific dispute, but the way it's progressed, the antagonism and bile vented means it's probably become more important in my life than it should be. I've been proud to help change the whole of Wikipedia and promote lists on the main page with the help of many other FLC project members, but seriously, life's too short. One or two real-life things have re-enforced that for me. By the way, I'll stick with it until we can find a replacement, Giants2008 is overworked here, and we need a way to move TFL to proper mainspace. WFC has some ideas on how best that should work, and I'd encourage the community to work with him on that. Thanks to all of you who still care and thanks to all of you who want the best for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I really would like to ask you to reconsider. I'm afraid that personally I consider the work you do for the FL process to be indispensable. If you are finding yourself being drawn into debate over a particular candidature, it's a symptom of the relative small band who keep FLC going - Raul has the luxury of no such restriction - and a tribute to your dedication that you regularly try to juggle the jobs of director and reviewer. I'm sorry, but I don't think we can afford to lose your skills and experience in the former role, even if you would still perform the latter. It's natural that every once in a while you'll get fed up or stressed, and I can only offer my apologies that I didn't see what was happening to try to support you from the start. But you know that the regulars understand how difficult your work here can become. I'd urge all of them to tell you how much you are appreciated, and to also ask you to think again. --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd second what RexxS has said above, and even if you don't reconsider immediately, I'd suggest just a break from these responsibilities and coming back in a few months? Your comments and efforts in the process have definitely been helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll third what Rexx said, fourth it, fifth it, and so on. TRM, you have been the heart and soul of FLC since I've been involved in the process, and what you do cannot be replaced by any of us, including myself. Even though I can handle FLC closures fairly well at this point, you do far more work advocating on behalf of FLC than I do, and do a better job of it than I ever could. Then there's a practical issue that everyone must know at this point: I'm not in a long-term position to take on added duties regarding TFL due to my college schedule. I can do a little more there during the summer, but not in the fall when my next semester starts. There's a reason I haven't been more involved at TFL, and real life is it. Anyway, to TRM I thank you for your many years of fine service and join the others in hoping you will think twice about your decision. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with everything said above. We're all human, TRM, even you. Take a break, clear your head, and get back on the job. It would be unfair to you to say that FLC can't go on without you, somehow it would, but it would be a painful loss. Don't jump the gun. Goodraise 08:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I could put my praise of you any more eloquently than those above TRM – while someone will hopefully step up to help Giants and Dabomb keep closures etc manageable, in terms of the standing you have given to FLC and TFL, you would be nigh-on irreplaceable.

What I would add is that I see the FLC and TFL roles as being extremely different. For FLC I can see how one might reach the conclusion that you can become too attached to lists, although I still strongly feel that you would have the community's unreserved support to continue or return as FLC director should you reconsider. But for TFL, passion for lists is surely all that's needed? —WFC— 13:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks to all of you for your kind and generous words. I'm not intending to leave the post unmanned, so I guess I'm here for a while longer. Let's see how it goes, I'd still like to see if anyone else is prepared to step into my rather worn-out shoes at some point. WFC, you're right, TFL is just about the listlove. Although it still seems that's all my love at the moment! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you stepping down. I've never really been a regular up this particular avenue but you've always been very helpful; indeed I highly doubt I'd have made any inroad here at all without your hands-on approach to aiding newcomers with the scarier aspects of what's probably the most technically-difficult of wikipedia's projects. I just hope you've not been so put off that we'll be missing out on that same level of aid and friendliness from you as a reviewer. GRAPPLE X 20:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

TRM, I cannot express enough gratitude and admiration for all that you have done for Featured lists over the years. You have stayed involved while many other editors (myself included) have faded in and out. I would hope that you make this an extended break (certainly well-deserved) from director duties rather than a permanent resignation, but if the latter is truly the case, then thanks for your work, and I hope to continue to see you conducting your excellent reviews at FLC. I will do my best to be more involved as a director in your stead. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my own praise here: TRM, I've found you to be eminently fair and balanced during all of my own work here, and you often concede to opinion on points which you personally disagree. You've ran a good ship, and you work here is invaluable. While I am not an admin, I would like to offer my additional help in reviewing and anything else that may be useful to the FL project, just let me know how I can help. Harrias ^talk 12:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all again for your vote of confidence. As I said above, I can't stand down when there's no-one willing to take my place, so for the time being I'll stay in post. As for "what can anyone do to help", well it's simple. Review as many lists as you can. Be critical but kind. Make sure what we're putting on the main page is still Wikipedia's best work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dan Savage bibliography for Deletion?

Resolved

 – Kept.

• Dan Savage bibliography

Relevant here due to page being subject of Arbcom amendment allowing me to work on it the page with mentor up to FLC quality status.

That mentor was selected and agreed to as being The Rambling Man (talk · contribs).

The page is now up for deletion.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Savage bibliography.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Discogstyle

hello,

now as the guideline is dormant what layout is the correct one? Can I use the classic or should I convert to the accessible table? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 13:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone? --GoP_T^C_N 09:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If there's no guideline telling you what format to use, you can use any format you like. However, to pass at FLC, it will have to be accessible. Goodraise 10:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It will have to be the accessible table as that meets MOS:DTT, while the other does not and the majority of discography lists that have recently been promoted use the accessible table, so there appears to be an informal consensus for it. NapHit (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that you should use Template:Discography list. It's a specially created template to facilitate the creation of discographies, the ease of adding new releases, and does away with custom table markup. I know this for a fact because Template:Episode list is a specially created template to facilitate the creation of episode lists, the ease of adding new episodes, and does away with custom table marking. And although not officially sanctioned (or even mentioned) by WP:MOSTV or WP:TV and WP:TVE, it is the only acceptable way to creating an episode list. WP:DISCOG and MOS:DISCOG do not sanction or mention Template:Discography list, but I think it's usage is analogous to that. :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this a list?

Seems like more of a filmography than an article: First Motion Picture Unit. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists are articles, "list articles". Personally, I'd say this is indeed a list article. Of course lacking a clear guideline on the matter, there may be editors who see that differently. Goodraise 17:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Help desk request about sorting tables

Slightly off-topic, but as we have lots of people here who know about tables... can anyone help answer this question about how to sort a table when you've got some rowspan=2 and colspan=3 mixed together? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No progress

hello,

do I have to wait until a reviewer strikes his oppose vote to nominate a second list, or can I ignore the rules and nominate a second list regarding WP:CUP? And if I should wait, how long? Can I nominate the nomination page for deletion and then put it back to the queue or do I have to withdraw it? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I propose to change the wording: "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and or reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. " - This is because many of the reviewed lists do not eceive supports for a very long time. What do you think? I believe the current wording is unfair for the nominator. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the solution is not to alter the wording as you propose but (1) ask the reviewer to revisit the discussion, and/or (2) ask one of the directors whether you can nominate a second list. Having too many nominations open just increases the workload for the limited pool of reviewers and slows things down for everybody, which is why the wording was introduced in the first place. Bencherlite^Talk 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already asked both reviewers to revisit, but one is on vacation and the other has not answered to date. I will try to ask Dabomb or Giants. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

About featured lists on the main page...

I wrote some stuff here! Would welcome all good (bad, and ugly) folks' input. Yay. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Another TFL triumph!

Just a quick note to let you know that Arnie's filmography had more hits as yesterday's TFL than the day's featured article of Aries. It was close, but Arnie edged it! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Who told you you could eat my pageviews. GRAPPLE X 14:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sub-headings within references sections

Until recently, if I've needed to have a "notes" and a "references" section, I've tended to do this, under a level 2 sub-heading:

;Notes

{{reflist|group="n"}}

;References

{{reflist}}

and the semi-colon at the start of the line produces this:

Notes

Fascinating notes

References

Unimpeachable references

However, I found a discussion at Talk:The Coral Island#Definition lists, where it was pointed out that using the semi-colon trick to create a bold effect was a no-no for accessibility purposes. Instead, we should use the three inverted commas method of '''Notes''' to produce Notes. I'm trying to remember to do this on my FLCs (and might even remember to do it at some point on my FLs) and I thought other people might like to know - although probably I'm the last to find out about these things, as usual! Bencherlite^Talk 18:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an accessibility issue, but at its core it's a semantic issue. Using this hack produces html that is semantic gibberish, which in turn is what is put on offer via screen readers. The poor markup will confuse other tools reading it, too (Google bot, for example;). Tip: use {{efn}} for teh notes; iz much shinier. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

On a trivial but sort of related note, I've tended to use {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} lately, which produces ^[a][b][c] instead of ^{[n 1][n 2][n 3]} —WFC— 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some input please.

I'm not canvassing, but I nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis/archive2 a month ago and only two editors have made some comments. If anyone has some spare time to go over the article, leave some comments or a vote, then it would be really appreciated. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Multi-noms

Are candidates with multiple nominators subject to the same listing criteria as ones with a single nominator, regarding how many concurrent candidates are allowed? I mean, would both nominators not be allowed to nominate another list until existing one has community support, or could they nominate one each individually and one together, like at FAC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

When the first nomination has garnered substantial support, another can be added. Nominations by more than one editor are not presently counted differently. Directors may or may not allow for exceptions to this rule. Goodraise 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Amount of nominations

At FAC, you are allowed to have two nominations open, if one of them is co-nominated with someone else. Does the same rule apply here? TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When the first nomination has garnered substantial support, another can be added. Nominations by more than one editor are not presently counted differently. Directors may or may not allow for exceptions to this rule. Goodraise 22:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FLC Process

There are currently 32 nominations older than 10 days (earliest since May), plus all the removal candidates (earliest since June). Is there a reason why admins are so reluctant to promote/fail these candidacies? After looking at them, many have clear consensuses... -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen a nomination closed after the ten-day period. If comments are forthcoming, the nomination is usually kept open. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not on a clock. Leaving a nomination open longer allows for more scrutiny. If there's anything wrong with directors' closing habits, it's that they tend to fail nominations too quickly. Is there a reason why you'd like them to close faster? Goodraise 13:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason us closers wait more than 10 days most of the time is that we want to be sure of the community's feelings about a list. If one or two people support or oppose, that's a bit thin to represent a true consensus. We'd be inclined to leave the FLC/FLRC open a little longer to give reviewers a chance to provide further input, as Goodraise says. If you want nominations to be closed faster, the best advice I can give is to review some new candidates; this will help move the process along, and nominators and directors alike will be appreciative. Oh, and you don't need to be an admin to close pages here or at FAC. I'm not one, and I get along just fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth editing the FLC intro to reflect current practices; 21 days might be a better time to list as few lists are promoted before the drop into the "Older nominations" boundary. GRAPPLE X 21:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We still get some lists that go through the process relatively quickly. In a perfect world, we'd be seeing some of the lists that clearly meet or fail the standards move through slightly faster than they do at present, but of course that depends on how much reviewing activity they get. I don't think the wording needs to be changed; if a list gets strong support early and clearly meets the FL criteria, making it stay around for another 10 days strikes me as unnecessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Grapple X: if 10 days is no longer the norm, I would recommend revising that number, for the benefit of the community's expectations. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ten days isn't a norm and as far as I can remember, it never has been. It is a set minimum to ensure editors get a chance to oppose. (This is important because FL reviewers won't usually be knowledgeable in regard to the topics of lists they review. We have to rely on regular editors of nominated lists to speak up when there's incorrect or disputed content. Criterion 6 serves the same purpose.) If the current instructions were to lead editors to believe their nominations will likely get through the process within little over ten days, then a change to the wording would indeed be in order, but I don't think that is the case. The instructions state that "each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer) ... After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed." I see no ambiguity here, and looking at the submission dates of the oldest active nominations should be enough to give one an idea of what to expect. Goodraise 14:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great month of August

Before we get too far into September, I wanted to let everyone know that we are coming off a fantastic month. In August, we saw 42 lists get promoted, the highest total for FLC since July 2009. Great job by all of the nominators and reviewers who made such a successful month possible! Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what an achievement! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Great work to you, FL directors, and all other FLC guys. Cheers, TBrandley 22:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A fantastic achievement. Well done to everyone involved.

With an average of 18 lists being promoted per month in 2012, over and above those which (admittedly very slowly) get brought up to scratch through TFLS, I wonder if now is the time to consider running TFL for two days a week? Quality checking is generally considered the limiting factor for TFL, but with this level of content being reviewed that seems less of an issue than it was a year ago. —WFC— 02:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we could probably handle two lists per week at this point, although I wouldn't stretch it any farther. Personally, I'd like to see more newly promoted lists at TFL. They figure to be of good quality, and it would provide a break from the date-relevant lists we've seen so much of recently. If we do expand TFL, let's try to run some of the newer FLs. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Friday would be a nice day to use as the second day; it's a day a lot of the anglosphere (our largest audience, for better or worse) will be getting off work/school/uni etc, so it should be a good day to "break" the usual schedule. GRAPPLE X 23:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be either Thursday or Friday, as this would allow us to cover six days per week (part of the morning after for those in the far east, part of the evening before for those in the Americas) That's relevant when we're talking about anniversaries and the like.

Agree with everything Giants says, and believe that we should make a point of using the second day to achieve those things. With one list a week it is often difficult not to go with date relevance, as certain months have a lot of "pinch points", where there will be a lot of interest in a particular type of list. Look at how many Academy Awards lists we have for instance. Or Super Bowl ones. Or association football competitions, most of which finish within a few weeks of each other. Throwing in a few that I haven't mentioned, and giving priority to highly relevant anniversaries (10/25 year anniversaries, or multiples of 50/100 years, particularly in fields that we don't post often) or things that coincide with high-interest events (total eclipses, for example), and without trying particularly hard we've pencilled in most of the year's Mondays. With the extra slots we should be able to take advantage of the increased interest during those "pinch points", while still posting a fair proportion of lists which don't really lend themselves to any date. —WFC— 01:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done everyone involved, nice to see that we seem to have a new batch of reviewers as well (correct me if I'm wrong, one of the lists currently running has nine supports?!). I think we should definitely look at a second TFL day, I would agree that putting a focus on running newly promoted lists is a good idea (less re-reviewing) but also think looking at older lists is good too (as we get a re-review and possibly prevent an FLRC). The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

While planning for a possible future expansion, it's important that we keep our eye on the ball for the TFLs that we are currently running. I just noticed that the last TFL ran without the listing of the three most recently featured lists, which is a standard item; in addition, it wasn't updated when it went on the Main Page. We need to keep an eye out for such issues to avoid criticism of how we're running TFL. Also, there's a discussion related to TFL here, in case anyone wants to chime in. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

TFL expansion proposal?

In my opinion, we are pretty much ready to propose an expansion at the Main Page. TRM suggested that I re-post the following comment I made on his talk page to here before we do that:

Thinking back to last year, the great thing about the final RfC (for putting TFL onto the Main Page) was that we had all the angles covered. This meant the proposal was effectively a rubber-stamp, rather than a potentially divisive debate over certain elements. In the hope of pulling that off for a second time, I would suggest addressing the following issues in any expansion proposal:

• Dampening expectation and calming fears. Every time we suggest expansion, there will be calls from some to go daily, and fear from others about whether we can cope in the long term. The balance I would strike is to do a little bit of a backlog drive on TFLS, to show that we are concerned enough about the workload to feel the need to have a bit more of a buffer. On the other hand, if the quality checking process falls apart, we promote far more lists in a week than we post, so we could always run new lists.
• Reassurance about variety. Point out the amount of completely unique lists we still have to choose from. I'd be happy to pick out literally two or three dozen if you asked me to: it wouldn't be work at all, I love finding quirky or niche lists.

  On the other end of the spectrum, there are still some extremely well covered topics that we haven't touched upon, largely due to competition from lists with date relevance. For instance, we haven't had a single list about hockey. Not a single biology or meteorology list (we posted our first biology list on 27 August). The only education list was 14 months ago, and the only military awards list related to animals. It might be worth preparing a list from each of those topic areas, plus a couple of quirky ones, and penciling them in for the early Thursdays/Fridays, so that we are ready to make good on our commitment for even more variety if we do get the green light.

• Explain the choice of day. The natural inclination for people not involved with TFL would be to schedule the days consecutively to keep things neat. If the proposal is for Thursday/Friday, explain the benefit of doing it this way (date relevance mainly). Due to time difference, scheduling on Monday and Thursday would run into Tuesday and Friday in Austalia and New Zealand, and catch the Wednesday and Sunday night traffic from the Americas. Now that I think of it, Thursday might be the best day, because if we were to expand again Saturday would be the ideal third day.

Hope that's of some use. —WFC— 21:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC) —WFC— 08:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I think we definitely set our stall out as just twice a week, nothing more. I think we've more than adequately demonstrated that we can easily cope with once a week, the lists are selected, reviewed and "blurbed" sometimes up to two months in advance (compare that with TFA which sometimes isn't even chosen until the night before). WFC's stats at TFL talk show that our lists are getting more popular and getting more attention as well. We've also beaten TFA several times for page views.
• Variety, agree entirely. I seem to recall the erroneous belief that we just do "popular culture" stuff which is abundantly untrue. I think I've been quite cautious to avoid too many of those types of list, perhaps a mistake because there's no reason we shouldn't be proud of what we all do.
• I'm happy with Thursday being the new additional day.
• We need to find someone who can ensure the currently coded templates will run smoothly for the change (including the main page transclusion) and we need to check across Wikipedia where we've said "once a week" or "Monday's featured list" or whatever to ensure a smooth transition to twice-weekly running.
• I'm happy to discuss suggestions on how to select the lists (the current mode of operation seems okay to me but perhaps a little clunky if we go twice a week).

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The main page contains a line that says:

• <!-- TODAY'S FEATURED LIST --><!-- CONDITIONAL: SHOW/HIDE FROM HERE -->{{#switch:{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}|Monday=

It would need to be amended to:

• <!-- TODAY'S FEATURED LIST --><!-- CONDITIONAL: SHOW/HIDE FROM HERE -->{{#switch:{{CURRENTDAYNAME}}|Monday |Thursday=

Edokter made sure that it would be simple to expand the days, but you can check with him that he agrees that the above solution works.

The template {{TFL archive}} would need to be expanded to show the first to fifth Thursdays as well, but that's just code copying. I'd recommend dropping at note at User Talk:Edokter to see if he can think of anything else. You'll need an admin to modify the Main page anyway - and it's best if that's somebody who knows what they are doing. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards received by Agnes Monica/archive1

Hello,

I just discovered this nomination which was never pasted here. Could someone do that? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's quite an old nomination, have you asked the nominator to correctly list it just in case it's not still relevant? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I contacted him, but he is very inactive. Not sure if it should be closed or listed. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just delete the nomination, non-controversial housekeeping. If anyone wants to nominate it in the future then they're free to create a new listing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Draft proposal for TFL to double up!

Please head to Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Working draft to help us formulate a suitable draft proposal to get featured lists on the main page twice a week!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mouseover text

I'm working on a draft version of Frequent David Lynch collaborators in a sandbox, and have been using {{Mousetext}} along with a key to keep the tables at a reasonable size (I think you can see from the current version why this was something I wanted to go for). However the template seems to rarely used and has no discussion; I'm just wondering if it still works fine within the remit of WP:ACCESS and the like, or if I should come up with an alternate solution (which would probably emulate Timeline of the far future by using images with alt text and mouseover text both set). GRAPPLE X 15:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the deletion of the "mousetext" template. Please use {{abbr}} instead. The latter is more accessible, and it explains clearly how to use the template correctly. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've since replaced it with <abbr>...</abbr> rather than a template, following advice from RexxS; but the new template looks good too. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the same. The point is to use the "abbr" tag, be it directly in the page or trough a template. I see two small advantages with the template: the syntax might be more simple for newbies, and the documentation page explains how the template is meant to be used (which helps preventing misuses). It entirely up to you to choose which you prefer. By the way, {{abbr}} is not new since it was created in 2005. Dodoïste (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In true Irish fashion, I'll just offer that it's new to me. :P GRAPPLE X 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Two nominations

At FAC, the laws there allow two nominations by a single user if at least one of them is a co-nom ("An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them.") This same principle is allowed here at FLC? — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Our instructions go along the lines of "if you have one open nomination, it should have substantial support, concerns substantially addressed, before you nominate another". We don't have explicit "laws" regulating co-nominations so I suggest you just go ahead and co-nominate, assuming you are prepared to expediently deal with concerns over any and all lists you are associated with at FLC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thansk for your response Rambling Man :). Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"professional standards of writing"?

From the third paragraph of Foot in Mouth Award, promoted a week ago:

• "The award has been awarded 17 times, and only Rhodri Morgan has received the award more than once."
• "Politicians have been recipients of the award more times than any other group of people, collecting the award on eight occasions, while members of the sports world have won four times."

Multiple repetition of "award"; misuse of "while" to mean "and"; "members of the sports world". Not professional at all. --Stfg (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You could always just fix them yourself... --MASEM (t) 20:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Even better, you could become a reviewer at FLC. We welcome reviewers. We welcome positive input. We welcome anyone who wants to actively improve and promote our content!! Welcome aboard! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, I fixed some of those more objective issues, if you'd like to do more, please do! Not sure why "while" can't be used, reading "and" as a replacement seems very odd to me, but then I barely scraped an education, so what would I know...! I suspect Shakespeare or Stephen Fry would just say "get over it" as it's, nowadays, commonplace to use "while" in exactly this sense...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I agree it is not professional standards of writing. However, the process relies upon volunteers, which are short on at the moment. Unfortunately the process is only as good as those partaking in it. If you feel strongly about lapses as this making it through the process, then I would recommend you review a few lists to gauge the standard as a whole. I think I speak for the process and the directors, that we would be thrilled to have someone of your expertise here. You've copyedited a number of my articles at GOCE and they have always been top quality. NapHit (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Thanks, everyone. I realise I should have fixed it, but I was making a general point. That paragraph is just illustrative. Yeah, the big deal is how many people step up to help, isn't it. At present I'm lead coordinator of WP:GOCE and that's busy, so I have little time to spend here for now. Maybe one day. One thing that is often done at both FAC and GAN is to comment "prose not ready yet, try GOCE". I've not visited FLC before, so I don't know whether that is said so often here, but you can. We welcome requests.

About "while": it's commonly used as a coordinating conjunction, but this use is colloquial and is deprecated in style and usage guides. Its correct (and non-dialect) uses are the first two listed at wikt:while#Conjunction. When tempted to use "while", it's worth quickly checking whether the relationship between the two statements it separates is one of those two. That way, one can avoid the slopppy uses. --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that, Stfg, is that you really shouldn't take what you read on wikipedia (or wiktionary) as reliable. Anybody can edit it! The normal usage of 'while' actually is as a coordinating conjunction, although wiktionary gives an archaic example from Beaumont and Flanders where it is used as a preposition (substituting for 'until'), but fails to spot the change in part of speech. So much for that as a source.

I agree, though, that the proper use of 'while' is to join two clauses which occur at the same time, and I'd accept a secondary common usage as a substitute for 'although'. That, of course, brings us back to your original criticism:

• "Politicians have been recipients of the award more times than any other group of people, collecting the award on eight occasions, while members of the sports world have won four times."

I have to say that "Politicians have received the award more than other groups. During the same period (i.e. the lifespan of the award), sportsmen and women have won four times." is a reasonable reading of what was intended in the quote above. If you think about it, you may agree that the two clauses in the quote were cotemporal and that there's really nothing to disqualify 'while' from acting as the conjunction there. Or maybe you still disagree? --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(I hope this is the right way to thread it; apologies if not.) Actually, RexxS, I still do. What the sentence appears to be doing is listing the first and second most represented groups. Merely listing them. As to wiktionary, I was using it for exposition, as any wikilink, not for sourcing, and point 3 there (which I excluded) is a dialect use only. This while/and thing is quite an old chestnut, and pretty much any usage guide from a mainstream publisher would say what you said, except that FWIW I think they would call both the valid uses you mention subordinating conjunctions. --Stfg (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's less a question of how many people step up to help rather than whether one qualified person steps up to review a particular list. Where you see ten glaring mistakes, I might only find one or none at all. When reviewers find many imperfections in the prose, someone will usually suggest finding a copy-editor, but when only few are found reviewers will normally contend themselves with having those fixed. If you think this approach yields insufficiently professional results, we should consider changing it. Perhaps we—and with that I mean reviewers like myself, whose copy-editing skills are less than exceptional—should start assuming that the few prose imperfections we find are but the tip of the iceberg. While that would certainly improve results, it still probably wouldn't be as effective as you seem to desire. Seeing as most list articles are short on prose and only about twenty are promoted each month, already in a state in which prose imperfections are either non-existent or very difficult to spot for the layman, it might be a viable option (you'll know better than me, whether the GOCE has the resources to spare) to simply have all freshly promoted lists checked by the guild. Considering the persistent lack of manpower at FLC, this might be the only way to ensure truly professional standards of writing. Goodraise 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Though I appreciate the contents of WP:OWN, it might have been polite for someone to have drawn my attention to this discussion. The point that Stfg highlights is a highly valid one. I've noticed for a while that the review process at FLC is far more forgiving than that of FAC in terms of prose quality. Whether there is a specific, realistic way that this can be solved, I don't know. Incidentally, I used ""members of the sports world" rather than "sportspeople" because the dictionary defines a sportsperson as "a person who takes part in sports, esp of the outdoor type", and while all of the winners had taken part in sports, when they won, two were managers, one an administrator and one a commentator, and I didn't feel it accurate to use the term "sportspeople". But maybe I was wrong. Harrias ^talk 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies: my comment was intended to be about reviewing, not a criticism of your writing -- we write collaboratively. In that phrase, I was concerned with "members", because the sports world doesn't have a membership as such. Will this morning's effort do?

My initial comment was too sharp, I think, and I'm sorry for that. Harrias, Goodraise and The Rambling Man have hit the nail on the head. To have featured content meet professional standards requires people who can make that happen and are willing to spend the time. WP:GOCE is overstretched too, and trying to keep pace with that is costing us some quality there. There are plenty of good writers active on Wikipedia, but I suppose people want to choose the subjects they spend their time on, and many of the topics that get sent to FAC and FLC (and GAN, too) are, dare one say it, not very attractive to many of the best writers. What does one do about that? Lower the standards for those topics? Allow them to accumulate in backlogs? I don't know.

In case it seemed otherwise, I think Foot in Mouth Award is a thumping good read. Thank you for creating it. --Stfg (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to get to this before now, but real life and other Wikipedia tasks have knocked me for a loop lately. On one hand, our prose expectations are slightly lower than FAC's "engaging, even brillant" writing standards. Still, seeing something like "award has been awarded" drives me nuts. We are all volunteers and review to our capabilities, but we should all be keeping an eye out for prose nit-picks like these. They aren't that difficult to catch if you are focused on finding them, and the resulting fixes lead to a more professional end product. Just something to keep in mind for all of the reviewers who see this. I have faith in FLC's reviewers, but improvement is always possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

UcuchaBot

I have noticed the UcuchaBot notes WikiCup nominations and moves markers at FAC, but this is not done here at FLC. Can it be done at FLC, possibly, it would be easier, IMO? TBrandley 00:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To find out whether it would be possible to expand the use of UcuchaBot, you should ask Ucucha on his talk page. He would know how easy it would be to code the bot to handle FLC. I'd like it if the bot did this; it saves us the trouble of manually updating the page. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I went and asked Ucucha. We'll have to wait and see whether the added coding is possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Are joint nominations allowed?

I would like to nominate two lists in the near future. As they are for paired legislative chambers (House and Senate), would it be possible to nominate them jointly? I can't imagine any issues that would exist for one that wouldn't exist for the other, since I created them with the same structure and much of the same wording. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Well, the directors might allow it, but I don't think that will happen. More to the point, I wouldn't do that in your place even if it were allowed. FLC is always short on reviewers and having to review multiple lists before supporting would be discouraging. Just nominate the second once the first has gained substantial support. Goodraise 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher, one of the reasons that we have a rule limiting FLCs to one at a time (generally) is that similar lists often have similar problems, as you say. Instead of having two lists at FLC with the same problems at once, we typically think it's better to nominate one list and apply any recommended fixes to the second list before it is nominated. That way, a nomination of the second list should go smoother than the first. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Adele/archive1

Hello, if you would like to leave comments which concern you or would cast a vote in support or opposition based on your findings, I would much appreciate it. The list has garnered several good (and resolved) reviews, but no votes have been cast. Thanks. AARON• ^TALK 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

River martins

I mentioned before that I was upgrading two of the three articles in this GT to FA, this now done, so we have river martin (GA), White-eyed River Martin (FA} and African River Martin (FA). I got the impression that once this was done, promotion to FT was automatic, just checking before I move anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this the right forum for your query, try WP:FTC? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not automatic, you have to nominate at WP:FTC. And yeah, if the articles are solid enough it is essentially a waiting game. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Katy Perry/archive1

If anyone has some time to comment on this FLC it would be appreciated. AARON• ^TALK 18:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you also try relevant projects, like DISCOGS etc. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A "good lists" system?

There's the start of a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Lists at GAN which might interest some here. Bencherlite^Talk 19:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading, but not for me. It already starts with an inherent hostility towards the quality of FLs, so let those involved make their own minds up. I'm sick of defending FLC. Easy for FAC people to dig at it but they don't take part often enough to really get the right to have an opinion on the whole thing. Thanks for the note though. I'd be more interested in a discussion over the quality of the articles selected for bold-links at WP:POTD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I have no hostility at FLC :) I just wanted to see what people thought about that after several users have reached to me, asking me about it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you did, my comment was related to the idea that FLs are inherently lower in quality than FAs. They're obviously different animals. And while there may be less prose, it's still reviewed to the same standard as FACs (although we don't have the expert reviewers, so we have to make do), and the technical aspects usually far surpass FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I gree with you. FAs and FLs have the same quality, although it's true (in my opinion) than having a list reaching FL status is easier than having an article reaching FA status, but that's because the absence of prose. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld and perhaps others in the past had proposed this, and it was rejected because of complications with WP:CFORK. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How does CFORK factor into this? Goodraise 17:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the thinking was that the only lists that could conceivably meet a GL standard, but not FL, must be content fork-type lists, which probably shouldn't exist anyway. In other words, there are articles that can only reach GA, but all list articles should in theory be able to gain FL status. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an argument against having a GL process, as content forks should never exist, but whatever. Goodraise 05:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, and it isn't possible either. Also, the darft for good list criteria includes a clause stating that content.forking is not allowed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but sometimes the work required for an FL isn't apparent just from reading the FL. As the FL criteria require a minimal number of redlinks at most, much of the work may go in writing articles about the list's content e.g. Peter Vardy's work on numerous individual churches is followed up by a list of them. Looking at the list, one might think "oh, that's just a few churches and pretty pictures with a standard introduction" (which would be wrong anyway!) but the real work has been done over a long period before getting anywhere near FLC. I wrote a couple of hundred articles about alumni and fellows of Jesus College Oxford in order to get the respsective lists through FLC. This "minimal redlinks" rule in fact helps improves WP overall by increasing the depth of its coverage in certain areas. That's something that FAC doesn't require, of course, because lists and articles are different in that respect. No-one would say (as an actionable objection) that there are too many redlinks in the prose that ought to have articles written about them before the bronze star is awarded. Bencherlite^Talk 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In theory it's a nice idea, and could well drive up FLC standards further. In practise, the only way this would ever happen is if a keen list reviewer decided to press ahead with a userspace award, demonstrating that the process was feasible, distinct from FLC and GAN, and beneficial to the project. That strikes me as being a hell of a lot of work, with some pretty hurdles, for something that is likely to come to nothing. But you never know. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello,

if George Harrison passes FAC, would it be possible to pass both the discography page and the main article simultaneously? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How can that happen, if either the list or article have issues when the other one is promoted. I'm not sure what your request here is. FAC is independent of FLC, they're not going to be influenced by what is happening at the discography FLC and neither should we concern ourselves with that FAC. Odd request, not sure what your point is. NapHit (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not going to hand out a free star here if a given article passes at FAC. Just because an article gets through one process doesn't mean that a list is going to be free of issues, and vice versa. The articles have to pass the processes on their own merits. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that Tomcat's request would be better for WT:TFAR — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• How? Neither the article or the list is featured. What he's asking is that if one is promoted can the other be as well. Obviously the two processes are independent of each other so the answer is no. If he wants both page to feature on the main page simultaneously then first both have to be featured. NapHit (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm reading this as in the conditional voice, so it's if this were to happen... could I do this? That both have to be featured first goes without saying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but he says both article and list simultaneously, which suggests if one passes then the other should too. I hope that wasn't what Tomcat was asking, because he should know that is not how the processes work. NapHit (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How much prose is too much

I have an article (List of Ops (B) staff) with three reasonably sized prose sections & two lists. Do you think this reasonably falls under "list class", and if so would it be suitable for FLC (bearing in mind I still need to do a lot of work on it). --Errant ^(chat!) 11:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• With that much information on Jervis-Read, Wild, and Fleetwood-Hesketh, I'd suggest going to article route. They'd have to be given less prominence in a pure list (compare List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies, where major players like The Teng Chun are given barely more text than directors who only released one film) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's too early to ask that question. Make it the best article you can. Figure out if it's a list article or a non-list article later. Off-topic: This comes up so often, perhaps we should start an FAQ or something. Goodraise 13:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Both that and the main article are very short. I would recommend merging the staff list into Ops (B). Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The main article is going to be much much longer when I get time to work on it. Thanks all for the feedback. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nit-picking

I had a really good laugh today reading this article about the ongoing dispute over at Talk:Star Trek into Darkness/Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness. It got me wondering. I can be pretty anal a reviewer, though recently I've made a conscious effort to be less of one. What I'm asking myself is where consensus lies on the issue. Should reviewers be as pesky as they possibly can to ensure new FLs truly exemplify our very best work, or is it more desirable to get additional reviews done at the cost of a few incorrect capitalizations and the like? Goodraise 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Umm... we're mostly here to write content, not nitpick over capitalization like that. Discussions like at that talk page are likely to drive contributors away... debates like that Star Trek one and at Information technology just seem to signal hard times upon us. So... if we try and argue incessantly about capitalisation at FLC we'll end up with no nominators. We should insist on good prose, but killing billions of bytes on a capital p or f is a bit much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not my point. That dispute just made me realize that I'm not all that anal compared to some other people. Basically I'm wondering if we should react to reviewer shortages by reducing scrutiny on less sensitive issues such as absolute MOS compliance. Goodraise 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you have any examples of an otherwise good to go nomination derailed by discussion over a seemingly insignificant detail like this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
      • The reference to the Star Trek discussion still has you misunderstand what I'm talking about. Probably my fault. Obviously I don't know how much time other reviewers invest into their reviews or if there's anyone sharing in my conundrum, but I rarely slap my "'''Support'''. ~~~~" on a nomination before having invested literally hours of scrutiny into it. If I knew the community would rather have three superficial reviews than an in-depth one, then I'd get a lot more of them done. Goodraise 03:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
        • And this is related to Star Trek why? "As pesky as possible", if you are defining it like at Star Trek, is definitely not what we want. We want a general consensus that the article/list is in-line with the MOS, uses only free media (when possible), is free of copyright infringements, reasonably complete, and accessible. Having a 2 hour internal debate about the placement of a comma is not in the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Jesus! I'm not involved in the Star Trek debate, nor am I talking about it. The fact that such debates happen merely made me wonder what the community would rather have, a featured list process that works slowly, often taking month, but which lets through only the finest lists possible, or one which works more quickly, but is more penetrable for imperfect lists? A harmless question in my mind, undeserving of the kind of outrage I (perhaps mistakenly) sense in your comments. Goodraise 04:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
            • I've been meaning to comment here from the moment I saw this. In cases where there is uncertainty as to whether something is properly capitalized, I'm willing to be flexible as long as an article is internally consistent. What really annoys me is when words are capitalized for no good reason, which I've seen many times. Some may think of me as a nit-picker for bringing up such issues, but I think improper capitalization looks unprofessional and doesn't reflect well on the writing as a whole. Fixing such issues is easy, so in my mind it's worth the effort. As for Goodraise's question, I absolutely think we should be trying to promote the best possible lists. FLC is already more accessible than FAC for newcomers; once an editor figures out how to format tables in a way that meets FL standards, they're in good shape much of the time. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)