Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 23

< Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Reywas92 in topic Text Alignment in Tables
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

Why are nominations so rarely archived?

Latest comment: 8 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

The WP:FLC header reads "Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." What seems to happen in practice, is "each nomination will last, no matter what, until it is either ready for promotion or completely impracticable to keep open". At the moment at the bottom of the FLC page, we have:

I have seen this before when looking at FLC. It seems to me that by keeping these old nominations open way longer than they should be, the process's reviewing capacity is in effect diluted. If a soft time limit (say two months, like FAC) was actually enforced, I think FLC would start to run much smoother. As it stands, only seven current nominators have bothered to review other nominations. That is quite frankly pitiful for a collaborative project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's because, in good months, we usually have about 30 nominations active, of which maybe 1 is more than 10 weeks old. And those neglected nominations do eventually get reviewed (though sometimes I do a review+promotion). In bad months, however, we end up like we are now... and for some reason this happens every December-February.
More specifically, it's because I feel bad archiving a nomination solely because not enough people have reviewed it yet- that's not the fault of the list or nominator. FAC is pretty aggressive about it, but FLC hasn't been since maybe 2017. I do agree, however, that it's currently out of hand. --PresN 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if we put a note in the nomination instructions encouraging people to optionally review other nominations? This would be similar to WP:GAN/I#N2, which notes: (Optional): Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate. This does not imply quid pro quo. This simply means that helping to review articles will help the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I've recently been trying to do at least a QPQ for my nominations, and did a review for my newest nom earlier today. -- ZooBlazer 06:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Probably should be doing a few since you need 3 (including someone reviewing sources) for a list to pass. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot promotions

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it possible to have the bot link the article name in the edit summary when it does a promotion?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably? I guess you could ask Hawkeye7, who created and maintains the bot, if you want; the FLC team does not control it. --PresN 05:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  Done This change has been implemented. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

List with some missing info

Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is either List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year or List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year a viable candidate with a table that is incomplete?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Neither list seems to explain why the table is incomplete, which makes it hard to say if the lists are viable with these gaps. Also, I went looking for the 2006-07 men's gap, and this not only has it but calls it "NAIA Division II", which doesn't match what the lede says it was called at the time. --PresN 21:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
User:PresN, I am starting to look for missing refs. At the List of Academic All-America Team Members of the Year list, I found one ref to verify the list of all previous winners. Is that sufficient or do I need to find refs for each year with details on the qualifications each winner had to win in his/her/their year?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
That source appears to have the information that's actually in the table, so it's sufficient. --PresN 21:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Centralizing the discussion. Please see the above link for my proposal regarding the WP:FLCR. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University/archive1

Latest comment: 8 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

@PresN You have closed the FLC arbitrarily:

This nomination has been open for four months; in that time it's gotten one support and one oppose

As I see, there are two supports and one oppose.

especially after AirshipJungleman29 said that you should check the prose as well as the infobox and no edits were made there

I believe the edits were made, also mentioned so on the FLC page with   Fixed note, along with pinging the said user. Also, I do not see the said user saying anything about prose. Rather, they specifically said ...issues with the infobox alone... I haven't even checked the prose or the list itself

What does "NIRF ranking of the university dropped from third to sixth after five years" even mean?

I have answered this to an FLC comment earlier.

It would have been great if you would have

  • acknowledged the two supports;
  • acknowledged that edits were made after the opposer's comments, and that they did not return to provide constructive feedback thereafter, thereby impeding the process;
  • placed the onus and responsibility on the opposer, rather than outrightly rejecting FLC with final comments;
  • understood that this article is written in Indian English;
  • given this editor a chance to reply before closing the FLC.
  • placed the questions/feedback in closing remarks as comments/feedback during the 4 month period of this FLC (in which you have been active indirectly).

Thank you, Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You did get two supports, but at the end of the day, there was not a consensus for promotion and there was still apparently a fair bit left to actually review. 4 months is a really long time for a nomination to stay open and we don't leave them open indefinitely. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
You also didn't mark the references as dead, as requested by Airship. I'm noticing a number of authors missing from references when they're listed at the sources as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Hey man im josh, thanks for the reply. I believe all references are Archived, is there a bot to check and mark refs as dead? Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Go to the page history of the article and click the fix dead links button to run the bot to check for them. -- ZooBlazer 04:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks, it runs the IAbot, which has been run. I was looking for a bot to scan/search for dead urls and mark them as such. Anyway, I have manually search and marked the faulty dead urls as such. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
there was not a consensus -- 2 supports (after detailed and continued discussions) and 1 oppose (without the opposer returning to provide comments/feedback on action taken/edits made) is no consensus? Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
That's correct. You need to receive support from more than 2 people, typically at least 3. The opposer gave a ton of feedback, some of which you hadn't done, such as marking dead links, but they basically said there's so much wrong with it they don't want to get into a back and forth pointing out every issue because it would take too much time. There's also the issue of the list still needing portions reviewed after nearly 4 months. So, even if they didn't say "oppose" and just gave feedback, you still wouldn't have had the list entirely reviewed yet or have had enough support to pass. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately, if a nomination has been open for more than 2 months, something has gone wrong-either not enough reviewers have reviewed it, or there are still significant problems that are stopping people from supporting or leading them to oppose. As you can see in the section above, some people would prefer if I was much more aggressive in closing stalled nominations, instead of leaving them open for 4 months like I did this one. FAC, for example, will close a nomination if nothing happens to it for 2 weeks, which isn't something I do here.
In any case, the nomination needed to be closed as it was way over time by any measure. AirshipJungleman29 did not return to the nomination, so I could not say if his oppose was no longer justified to him, so as FLC delegate I could only say if it seemed justified to me as the closer. And what I saw was that he opposed on the infobox alone, and said to re-check the prose, and yet no edits seemed to have been made to the prose, and I was able to see multiple issues in the prose and table in 30s of looking. That's not the kind of thing I'd expect for a nomination that had been reviewed by multiple people and been open for months. I listed them out as an explanation of why I was closing it; it wasn't a full review, which is why I did not wait for your response.
So, could I promote it? No. Could I let it keep lingering on for further months? No. So, I closed it. Closing a nomination is not a condemnation of you as an editor or even of the list, but just a statement that it does not have a quick path to promotion at this time. Feel free to renominate it whenever, but please make sure to fix any issues that you can before nominating.
To respond to some of your specific points: It was one prose support, the other was for images; I know they didn't come back after the oppose vote, which is why I had to evaluate if their concerns were addressed myself; and the onus is always on the nominator to make the list as good as they can, not on the reviewers to justify themselves to the nominator's satisfaction. --PresN 13:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Noted with thanks. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Another nomination?

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." It seems from recent nominations that having two supports is considered "substantial". Am I OK to make another nomination given the state of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1983/1984/archive1? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Yep, you're good. --PresN 03:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Ken episodes

Latest comment: 7 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

So question is List of Dr. Ken episodes too short to be an FLC? It only ran for two seasons and had around 45 episodes. It wasn't really beloved so their may not be enough sources regardless. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it being an issue. Typically the issues we face with lists being too short occur when there are under 10 possible entries. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is well above the length where there would be issues. --PresN 15:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't hesitate that the list would be long enough for a featured list, but I do feel that the list may have been unnecessarily split from Dr. Ken. That article is fairly short and likely wouldn't meet the requirements of MOS:TVSPLIT. Especially knowing that the series has concluded, the parent article could easily hold this list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I did a test edit and copied the series overview table over to the parent article, it returned a "readable prose size" of 2271 B which would equal 2.27kb. This number does not account for episode summaries, but MOS:TVSPLIT recommends estimating a 200 word summary at 1kb per episode. That would only make the article 46.27kb which falls just shy of the 50-60kb required for splitting. I'll expand on this by saying that no summary is at 200 words, most are just around or less than 100, so If I cut the 1kb per episode in half, it's safer to estimate one single complete article with no LoE page around 24kb which would definitely not justify the separate list.
Unless you plan on expanding the summaries and the content on the parent page, the two should be merged. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, that is unfortunate. I can begin merge shortly. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility

Latest comment: 6 months ago46 comments14 people in discussion

Should the leads of Days Of the Year (DOY) articles be expanded to comply with MOS:LEADLENGTH/WP:FLCR or should those policies be modified to create an exception for DOY articles per the apparent consensus against changing DOY leads?

Dan the Animator 01:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia talk:Days of the year. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
In case it helps, here's a more drawn out explanation of the question above. Of the 367 DOY articles (representing each of the 366 days of the year for the standard Gregorian Calendar plus one article which is a simple directory that's mostly irrelevant to this discussion), many have been gradually improved following a change of the DOY Wikiproject's consensus (link to that discussion on that change) on the need for in-line citations within DOY articles.
The main question comes from the stagnation of my Featured List nomination for the DOY article February 8. While I've edited that article substantially and have also brought it through a peer review some months ago, the article hasn't been able to gain any support at WP:FLC as of yet due to the issue of the lead size.
Per the Featured List criteria, all FL articles must have an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. However, per the guidelines at DOY Wikiproject, the leads of DOY articles must follow the standard on the sample page, which consists of the boilerplate text January 1 is the first day of the year in the Gregorian calendar. It is preceded by December 31 (in the previous year), and succeeded by January 2. Following January 1, there are 364 days in the year (365 in leap years).
Due to the FL lead requirement, which itself stems from the MOS policy on lead formatting, the FLN for February 8 (and de facto any other DOY article) can't pass FLC unless the lead is expanded or the FL criteria is modified to create an exemption for DOY articles. Per the Wikiproject guidelines though, consensus in required to create any changes to any of the DOY articles that go against the Wikiproject sample. As part of the effort to make progress on the FLN, I opened a discussion on 28 December asking for a potential change of the guidelines to allow for longer leads in DOY articles.
While only three editors have replied since then, all three expressed different levels of opposition to any changes to the DOY lead formatting, with the main concern being that having an expanded lead isn't feasible/practical. Also, as mentioned above, there has also been a consensus against allowing articles with very short leads to pass FLN so far in the February 8 nom discussion. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether DOY articles have longer leads to keep the same lead. For me, my hope is to create a pathway for these articles to get quality-recognition which not only would benefit readers by allowing them to know which DOY articles are relatively good quality/trustworthy (one of the main reasons for having quality assessment icons in the first place imo), but also help editors by creating a direction and ultimate goal for improving these fundamental articles of Wikipedia, which are each shown on the front page annually.
Also, to preemptively re-address one of the concerns that was raised earlier on the FLN page: while yes, DOY articles are technically "dynamic" and subject to potential updates annually, they are just as dynamic as articles such as Canada and Bulgaria which consist of sections that require updates frequently too and nonetheless are eligible for and receive quality assessments (see here for the longer version of this discussion).
Hopefully I did a good job explaining the issue above but feel free to leave comments below or modify my response if I left anything out. Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, just to clarify: this discussion is not about whether the lead of the article February 8 should be expanded or exempt. This discussion is intended to find an outcome that applies to most if not all of the 366 DOY articles (including but not limited to February 8). Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Per the Wikiproject guidelines though, consensus in required to create any changes to any of the DOY articles that go against the Wikiproject sample. – This is WikiProject WP:OWNERSHIP, and those enforcing it can be sanctioned if they continue after being warned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dantheanimator, to expand on what Thebiguglyalien said, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages (an actual guideline) says that a WikiProject can't demand that "their" articles follow "their" rules, especially in contravention of the community's normal rules.
While IMO a group of editors working on a given subject area often have very good advice about that subject area, the guideline says "An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay." In other words, neither you nor anybody else is actually required to care what Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year#Style says. You do not need any additional permission from anyone to write a lead that complies with MOS:LEAD or any other policies and guidelines; you are already permitted to do so.
That said, because of the subject matter, it might be difficult to write a lead that is much longer than this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, this explanation is... much better than mine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I've had 14 years to practice this particular speech since Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC (i.e., when the community definitively decided that self-selected individuals don't get to make up rules contradicting the usual ones just because they call themselves a WikiProject). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies WhatamIdoing and Thebiguglyalien! :) My main reason for not changing the lead unilaterally before was due to a previous revert back when I made a much more tangential change during February 8's peer review per a suggestion. That said, @Kiwipete:'s revert of my edit was a bit quick and maybe slightly unwarranted but I agree with their reasoning that it would've been better in this case to open a discussion about that change considering no other DOY article uses those date templates. About making a longer lead now though, aside from the scope issue a bunch of people have already pointed out, I think it'd be generally a bad-faith edit since the apparent consensus is against it (as per the previously opened discussion specifically about February 8's lead).
However, if enough people here would like to see a sample of an expanded lead for February 8 (placed here for the sake of an example yk), feel free to let me know and I'll create one based on the suggestions already given here, the On This Day sources for Feb. 8, and my best judgement for what would be best for the lede from my experience editing the Feb. 8 article. Creating a lead will be difficult without a doubt but whatever helps move this discussion, and ultimately these articles, forward is ultimately for the better for everyone imo. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The point is that if the "apparent consensus" comes from a few people in a WikiProject, then it's a tenuous consensus. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and other guideline pages are the consensus that should be followed. "WP:DOYSTYLE" is an overstep; you or I could write a competing essay with our own ideas, and it would be equally valid. The revert by Kiwipete was a WP:DRNC failure. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
True... I guess what I meant to say is that I think it's wiser to discuss these things rather than start a potential edit war. Anyone here is open to directly editing the lead on February 8 (or any of the other articles) to better meet the MOS guidelines but I think it just makes more sense to put a sample here in the RfC and discuss/edit it here where it would avoid the possibility of an edit war. That said, like WhatamIdoing mentioned above, there's genuine concerns with expanded leads and it's better to be thoughtful about it than WP:BOLD imo. Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I would say the larger question is: Should all articles/lists be able to eventually reach featured status? And I would argue the answer is no; some topics are ill-suited to meet FA/FL criteria. There are several reasons this could be. Perhaps there are enough sources to prove notability and write a solid encyclopedic article, but not enough to cover the topic at the level of detail FAs should have. (See the FAC for "Loss" (comic) as an example.) Or maybe the article is a disambiguation page, or a list of lists, that is useful for navigation but not as content. Now, I'm not saying DOY articles clearly fall in one of these categories – I suppose they are directories in some sense, but I think they can provide enough context and detail to move beyond that. My point is that it's perfectly fine for some pages to meet different standards from FACR/FLCR in order to provide the most useful encyclopedic experience for readers. So I would support a third option not provided: do nothing and accept the difference in criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I think the scope and inclusion criteria are clear from the lead of February 8. I wouldn't exactly call it "engaging" but I'm not sure that word should be part of the FL criteria ("professional standards of writing" is more appropriate). While I initially thought there should be a longer lead, I think this is impossible given the inherently unrelated nature of each event listed. It's a synthesis issue. I might argue for lengthier leads in some cases, like December 25, where many entries will be related by a common holiday or anniversary, but not for February 8. (And by the way there's 366 days of the year: see February 29.)
    Given consensus is clearly in favour of these DOY articles existing, and they are lists containing encyclopedic content and not unstable on a daily basis (pun unavoidable), I believe they should be eligible for FL status. Here, it would show a textbook example of what a DOY article should look like and reward a volunteer who has significantly improved this area of the encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know what the lead should look like, but it needs to be more than a single sentence -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 08:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • While the lead will have to be short due to the scope of the article, I think it should at least try to summarize the major holidays/observances and most notable events/birthdates/death dates that occur[ed] on the particular date. For example, February 8 would have a summary of Prešeren Day (which would tie into his death on that date) and describe a handful of events that have long-lasting effects even if they are a bit close in time. If someone of major significance was born or died on that date, then they'd be included; the selection criteria would have to be fairly strict to keep the list short, but I'd have it a bit looser than what WP:ITNC requires for blurbs, as an example. SounderBruce 08:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I also have an inquiry regarding who should be included in the births and deaths section. Is there any sort of criteria that would merit any person to be listed on their respective birthday/day of death? For example using February 8, would Los Angeles Rams American football player Johnny Hekker be worthy of inclusion in the births section? I mean I undestand readers in Asia or Europe may not know him, but the same thing could be said of X athlete of a different country. After all, his birthday has several credible sources. On the other hand, let's say some editor wants to add X character actor who is pretty obscure to most audiences. What would be the guideline for that since IMDb isn't necessarily a great metric. I think there should be a standard of inclusion of people mentioned under births and deaths sectioon similar to the On This Day feature except a little more looser requirements like the person has to have reliable sources confirming their date of birth or have their article not be just a stub.
--Birdienest81talk 10:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: The established standard for which people are included in the births and deaths sections is that they have to have a Wikipedia article (no redlinks) and have a reliable source backing up the date. There's no metric for how obscure or not obscure they are -- it's assumed that if they have an article, they're notable enough to be listed. Aerin17 (t • c) 00:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • A relevant guideline is MOS:LEADREL:

    According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.

    Are there available reliable sources that can help objectively determine which events, births, deaths, holidays are worthy of being called out in a lead for a given date? Or would this be more of a subjective decision by editors? Systemic bias would be a concern.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think a few recurring events would be obvious (e.g., Christmas Day for December 25), and a few one-time events (e.g., Armistice of 11 November 1918 to mark the end of the WWI) potentially so, but overall it might be difficult. On the other hand, there are some sources (e.g., https://www.britannica.com/on-this-day, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history, https://apnews.com/today-in-history) that could be used not only to find events for the list, but also to figure out which ones are highlighted or emphasized. For example, @Dantheanimator might find https://apnews.com/article/today-in-history-7038e53c782274874575b6c1224a23ed useful, as it lists 16 different things that happened on February 8. A quarter of them are very recent, so perhaps of less enduring importance, but the ones that are 50+ years old look like candidates for consideration.
    Another thing that might be worth considering is a simple summary of where the day stands in the year meteorologically (e.g., February 8th is winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the southern hemisphere; there's even a record or two in List of weather records for that day.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    The problem with using most "on this day" websites is that they'll be skewed towards a certain audience. For instance, the Associated Press is a U.S. news service, so their "today in history" pages are heavily skewed toward U.S. history, overlooking possibly larger events. (Example: Are "Harding [having] a radio installed in the White House" and "Senate leaders [naming] seven members of a select committee to investigate the Watergate scandal" really the most important events from February 8 in world history?) It might be possible to find different websites serving different audiences and combine their OTD articles, but then we're right back to the same concerns about bias and synthesis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think that excluding things that don't appear in multiple such lists is perfectly reasonable. If most of them mention "In 1587, Mary, Queen of Scots was beheaded" or "In 1971, NASDAQ, the world’s first electronic stock exchange, held its first trading day", then that would probably be worth highlighting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    At least sysnthesis would be somewhat addressed if items in the lead were sourced to a a curated "on this day" list. Bias can be mitigated by making the source selection more diverse. —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think the meteorological idea would work great but I'm skeptical using various On this day (OTD) sources would be a truly viable solution. I mean, yes, they are a great starting point, but the majority of those sources have varying degrees of bias towards Western history and culture imo (at least of the ones linked above and the few others I've come across). Not to say there isn't a way to use these sources as per above but without more globally representative OTD sources, it feels like a no-go to me. Dan the Animator 01:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think that using these sources might result in a more global summary than if an editor merely looks down the list and says "Well, here are the things that I think were interesting or important".
    For example, just looking down the list, I'd probably pick these as my first candidates:
    But looking at the external sources might help me confirm or reject some of my first guesses.
    There were also three significant transportation disasters (1986 Hinton train collision in Canada, 1989 Independent Air Flight 1851 crash in the Azores, 1993 Tehran mid-air collision), so if that's an unusual coincidence, then a sentence like "There were also several unrelated transportation disasters on this date in the late 20th century" might work.
    Also, it occurs to me that people are sometimes looking at these dates because they are looking for milestone anniversaries. So if we think of this as "helping people find what interests them" (instead of "trying to tell them what's important"), then we might point out that the next February 8th will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jack Lemmon, American actor (d. 2001), the 200th anniversary of the birth of Henry Walter Bates, English geographer, biologist, and explorer (d. 1892), and the 300th anniversary of the death of Peter the Great, Russian emperor. This would mean updating the lead every year, but it has a certain amount of inherent even–Steven fairness, too, as every item in the list would eventually rotate through. (On average, 1% of the list would appear each year, so typically three or four items.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
    I wonder if singling out major anniversaries is unencyclopedic in some way (e.g., we'd knowingly be writing an article that will go out of date, and not due to new information becoming available), but I can't find any clear guidance. The best I could find was at Wikipedia:As of, which says: In general, editors should avoid using statements that will date quickly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    It's not normally relevant to an article, but I don't think it's inherently inappropriate. Also, Wikipedia:Five pillars says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", and noting anniversaries is a feature of almanacs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    Template:Show by date or Template:Hide until templates would be useful; you could specify the 2025 and 2026 anniversaries in advance, and have them displayed or hidden as needed. Then you don't have to set an alarm clock to update the text at the perfect moment. Before February 8th, it could display only the upcoming 2025 dates; on the 8th, it could display 2025 and 2026; the next day, it could display only the 2026 dates – and then you'd have nearly a year before it needed to be updated (blanking the hidden 2025 anniversaries, moving the 2026 dates into the first slot, and setting up the hidden 2027 dates). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think your points make sense but I'd be a bit worried over whether having the lead cycle through the content would make the article be considered "perpetually dynamic" to the extent it's not eligible for FL status. Thinking about it more, while the templates would work great, it might be also possible to create a program that skims through the article each year and copies those events/births/deaths that have notable anniversaries (10th, 20th, 30th...100th, etc.) and add those in the lead. There would still be the question of which anniversaries would count as "notable" and how to space them (e.g. by 10s or 20s or only 100s?) but I think that wouldn't be too difficult to resolve.
    Another option is just to have the lead parrot whatever WP:OTD has for that article for that year, although in my understanding, most days' OTD selections don't really change from year to year and they're very limited in terms of coverage. When I first considered expanding the DOY leads, I thought about structuring it thematically (politics, society, economics, etc.) similar to how the year articles do it (2001 for example) but that might be more difficult here since events within a single year inherently have more in common then events across centuries. Curious to see what other editors think though and thanks for the very comprehensive reply WhatamIdoing! (by the way, sorry to nitpick on this but for the significant transportation disasters you listed above, there were a few others on Feb. 8 (e.g. Eastern Air Lines Flight 663)). Dan the Animator 21:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    (Remind me never to schedule a flight on February 8th!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Alright, joining late here, sorry if I repeat something, but I agree with the statement that the doy project does not own the articles, and you can and should improve them to FA status if you like. Although they may have good reason for their views and it might be valuable to listen to them. Cheers, Geardona (talk to me?) 12:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I think very short leads are preferred for day articles on a practical basis if nothing else. Trying to figure out the "most important" things to highlight in the lead seems fraught with peril and an invitation to bad feelings and edit warring. Best to keep that in the article. It's okay that there isn't an overall "story" to tell about a day, because... it's just a day. There isn't a unifying story to tell in the first place. You can't say "February X is a day marked by tragedy" or "February X is an inspiring day, as proven by the following events". SnowFire (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't want to say that a day is marked by tragedy or inspiration, but December 25 probably should say that it's celebrated as Christmas Day in most of the world, just like the lead for January 1 says it's New Year's Day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't object about December 25 mentioning that it's Christmas in the lede, but that still doesn't get remotely close to the usual lede sizes of other lists, so there may need to be an explicit carve-out that day leads should only include overwhelmingly obvious holidays and such. SnowFire (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    The typical lead for an FA has 250 to 400 words in it. The boilerplate lead for DOY articles is 27 words exactly. I think that we could achieve something in between.
    We could double the length by adding something like "On this day, in 421 CE, Constantius III came co-emporer of the Western Roman Empire, Mary, Queen of Scots was executed in 1587" and triple it by adding modern information like "the Japanese attacked Russia in 1904 and Singapore in 1942, and in 1946, North Korea officially became a communist state. In 1971, the world's first all-electronic stock market opened on this date."
    If we add another sentence about the weather – "In the northern hemisphere, February 8th falls in the winter, and in the southern hemisphere, it is summer" – and a few anniversaries – "In 2025, February 8th will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jack Lemmon, American actor (d. 2001), the 200th anniversary of the birth of Henry Walter Bates, English geographer, biologist, and explorer (d. 1892), and the 300th anniversary of the death of Peter the Great, Russian emperor" – then I think we'd be in a fair way towards a lead that summarizes the article, even if it's half the length of what you'd find in FAs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    And I think that those additions are exactly the kind of thing that would make for lots of trouble for no reason. Why highlight someone like Bates? If highlighted at all, why highlight their birth rather than some actually important event in their lives? Was Peter the Great's death date significant? etc. That kind of stuff is okay for the body but has major WP:UNDUE problems in the lede. January 1 being New Year's Day is a really core thing to the date; January 1 being the Xth anniversary of obscure historical figure Y's birth is not (and once the floodgates open, would be an invitation to cram essentially the entire article in the lede, because good luck deciding the relative merits of events that happened on a day). SnowFire (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    Why highlight Bates? Because it's a big round-number anniversary, and big round-number anniversaries are what some readers are looking for. That makes it a WP:PROPORTION issue, rather than a viewpoints-based ("DUE") issue. Reliable sources highlight big round-number anniversaries; therefore, we should, too.
    Obviously, the following year, it wouldn't be the 100th anniversary of Bates' birth, so he would get removed, and someone else would get highlighted. Over the course of 100 years, everything in the list – but only, on average, 1% at a time – would have a fair shot at being mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    Since you mention PROPORTION, I'll note that the final line is: This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. In other words, the policy here seems to specifically push against weighing current coverage more heavily. I agree that reliable sources cover round-number anniversaries, but it is important to focus on the entire body of what has been written, which would cover anniversaries from every year. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    100-year-old events are hardly recent events, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    Correct, but we wouldn't be placing items in the lead based on the coverage they received 100 years ago, we'd be placing them there based on coverage/interest surrounding the 100th anniversary, which would be a recent event. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    WP:Recentism (you linked to it; have you read it?) recommends that editors "aim toward a long-term, historical view". Modern sources noting the hundredth anniversary of an event is practically definition of "a long-term, historical view".
    The lead of that essay links twice to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Breaking news, which is not relevant for anniversaries. "Breaking news" for a death is what you get on the day of the death; it is not what you get a hundred years later.
    The Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions for dealing with recentism section suggests that editors use "the ten-year test or twenty-year test" (emphasis in the original); I am proposing here a "hundred-year test" – far exceeding the standards of that essay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    I've read through WP:Recentism (the link was carried over when I copied the text), and I think our differences hinge on what "long-term" means. To me, while the lead would discuss long-term events (i.e., events from years ago), it would not be written for a long-term view because it would go out of date quickly. The ten- or twenty-year test says articles should be written for the long term, at least when I read it. (In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If the lead targets a specific year, then no.) That's what I was trying to explain by saying recent anniversaries would be current coverage and a long-term view would have to cover every year, though my word choice could have been clearer there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that adding a rotating selection of anniversary events would require annual updates to the lead.
    Can you agree that some readers are likely to be looking for exactly that information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that some readers may want that, but I think it is best suited for On This Day on the main page. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    {{On this day}} is on the talk page for that article. I wonder if it should routinely be displayed in the article instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • (de-indent) I disagree on even attempting to highlight big round numbers, which require maintenance and essentially a total changeover on Wikipedia, and also are weird for mirrors / reusers who have slightly older ledes. That kind of stuff is fine for the On This Day template which goes on the magazine-ier front page, but not for the article itself on February 25 or whatever, which should be a little more timeless. Even if we did loosen up our style guideline, we still have DUE concerns - again, once one person is included, it is difficult to distinguish between any of them. Or what counts as a strong link to the day or not - I'd say a birthday is an exceptionally weak link to the day, for example, and if there's a focus to be had it's on events closely tied to this day. But we can just skip that unfruitful discussion by agreeing to have it all in the body instead. SnowFire (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • We should probably clarify that list articles that consist of lists of un-like things, and which are set-index articles that exist simply to provide a place to list things with similar names/designations or other qualities, and for which no richly summarative, detailed lead can sensibly be written, does not need such a lead, just a short one that makes clear what the scope of the content is. This is a pretty obvious WP:COMMONSENSE matter, and I'm actually surprised that the featured-list review people didn't immediately intuit that. The February 8 article this discussion started about already complies with the principle I just outlined, and is probably all the lead it needs, though a bit of expansion (perhaps noting the total time-period range of the entire article, and a few other tidbits) wouldn't be out of the question. However, writing the same kind of lead we have at a very different sort of list article, composed of entries that are deeply thematically and historically related, e.g. List of political parties in the United Kingdom, is stark-obviously not possible for an article like February 8.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Lists of lists

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do we have any lists of lists at FL. Are they eligible for FL? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't think we have any; closest is Outline of lichens. There's nothing against it in the rules, though it's likely to be difficult to have one that's not just an index of wikipedia articles but actually a subject that itself passes NLIST. --PresN 17:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please archive Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of general elections in Botswana/archive1

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The nominator wishes to close the nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignore this. It looks like they changed their mind. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Third Nom

Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@FLC director and delegates: I have two lists at WP:FLC that have substantial support for promotion: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)/archive1 with 4 supports including a source review and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)/archive1 with 3 supports including a source review and one other comment addressed. Any issue with me putting up a third nom? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I think we want to keep it capped at 2 per nom for now, though I'd expect your oldest nom to be promoted in a few days anyway. --PresN 15:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
PresN, any chance you could take a look at them again? Both have substantial support and no recent activity. I would appreciate it! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Promoted them both, actually! --PresN 18:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

List of Boston Bruins seasons not appearing?

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's been nominated, but it seems to not be listed on the FLC page. The Kip (contribs) 00:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: You need to manually transclude the nomination page you created to WP:FLC. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding a new FLC delegate

Latest comment: 4 months ago16 comments15 people in discussion

Hi everyone; traditionally, the FLC process has had at least three people running it, but for the last 2 years it's been just me and Giants2008. In order to spread the load out a bit and keep the process from relying so much on individual editors, we are proposing to add Hey man im josh as a Featured List delegate. Over the past year or so they have been extremely active as a nominator and reviewer, and have been visible helping out other editors with the process both here and on the WP:Discord server (as well as having a successful RfA), so we think they would make a good delegate. Before we make it official, in order to be transparent we wanted to post the proposal here for feedback. --PresN 17:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Like those above, I Support this! I have seen nothing but great work and care from Josh's contributions to this site and particularly in these FLCs. He would be a perfect fit to help tackle this process! Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, with no objections raise and discussion concluded, I'd like to welcome Hey man im josh on as our newest Featured List delegate! They're now authorized to close nominations, and can be summoned along with Giants and myself with the {{@FLC}} template. If, now or in the future, anyone else is interested in becoming a delegate, feel free to reach out to any of us for consideration. --PresN 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take

Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@FLC director and delegates: How long does it takes to complete nomination. I made a nomination about one and a half month ago-it has received three reviews now, but still pending...Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Women's Premier League (cricket) captains/archive1 Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Typically we expect at least three reviews with supports, one of which would needs to be a source review. When PresN leaves the accessibility review message, it's not typically counted in this figure, as they're typically just evaluating whether the list meets accessibility criteria at a glance. It's more or less a reminder/explanation of a requirement that we have in place, as opposed to a regular review. For what it's worth, the key in your list still does not meet accessibility criteria (it needs the accessibility formatting as well). If you want to get more reviews on your nomination I encourage you to review nominations of other users. Even if you're not confident enough to do source or image reviews, prose reviews of other nominations can still be helpful. Lastly, this wasn't necessarily urgent enough to ping the coordinators, as I believe we all have this talk page watchlisted already. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I was just curious as its my first nom; I'm not exactly familiar with the review process but, I will get to it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
That's fair @Vestrian24Bio, we all start out somewhere. That's why I typically suggest prose reviews for those new to the process. Most people can read through and call out when something sounds strange or a sentence just makes no sense. If that's all you can contribute while still learning the ropes, that's totally fine! Every bit helps. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Got it! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Format ideas for an FLC project

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am thinking about bringing IFSC Climbing World Championships to FL status. It is a biennial event with 3-4 disciplines in male/female categories running since 1991. I would love to get suggestions of existing Featured Lists whose format/layout/standard would be a good example for me to aim for? thanks in advance. Aszx5000 (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Some parts seem to resemble the just-promoted World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count, so I would suggest that for those sections. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That looks interesting - thanks for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator makes personal attack and closes nomination

Latest comment: 4 months ago13 comments7 people in discussion

In the nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1, coordinator @User:PresN posted a suggestion, ignored my argument that his suggestion was not in line with WP:ACCESS, posted a personal attack, ignored my note about this attack, didn't come with any alternatives even though I kept looking for ways to resolve this including giving in to his suggestion, and closed the nomination appealing to tradition and saying there was no resolution possible. I find this incomprehensible. – Editør (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks were made. Additionally, all Wikipedia tables are required to conform to the MOS per MOS:ACCESS. Your refusal to incorporate column and row headers is downright baffling. Reading through that nomination, I found your behavior toward numerous reviewers argumentative and hostile. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I am glad that it's all documented, so people can read it for themselves. – Editør (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record, since there's a lot of text on the nomination page, what Editør considers a personal attack is "Row scopes on the "primary" column for each row in combination with column scopes let screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay." --PresN 16:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
None of what you wrote is in the same hemisphere as a "personal attack". Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Examining that table, the date column should be moved to the first position and made the dates be made the row headers. Then the athlete, followed by the nation, then the time, then the location, and finally the reference. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have adjusted the table so that it now conforms to MOS:ACCESS. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't review the article, but it's duplicative of 400 metres hurdles#Milestones. It seems like a WP:CFORK that doesn't need to be a standalone page (criterion 3c) and should be merged there. Reywas92Talk 16:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I have NLIST quibbles here as well -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
There was a lot of different things I wanted to address based on this post and your comments at your nominations, such as you stating that PresN's mention of the requirements was merely a suggestion, but I'm going to keep it short. I (as one of the other two coordinators at FLC) support and endorse PresN's close, and, as I mentioned at the nomination, I also had intentions of closing that and your other nomination for the same reasons. PresN was very patient, thorough, and clearly did not make a personal attack directed at you. Accessibility is not a suggestion, it's a requirement. If you do not intend to meet the featured list criteria, specifically 5(c) in this case, then the list(s) will not get promoted. Let's not waste the time of reviewers and coordinators if you do not intend to meet the criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Featured list or not, WP:ACCESS is not a suggestion and all Wikipedia tables are expected to be in compliance, period. I am confident Hey man im josh is in agreement with that. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Editør, please stop beating a dead horse. Seriously though, your behavior has been bizarre, and as was noted, outright argumentative at times, in these nominations. I'm not sure how many different editors need to state something for you to grasp the possibility you may be wrong. And hiding behind an accusation of a "personal attack" appears as either disingenuous or is some breakdown, maybe in language, in what truly constitutes a personal attack.
On a related note, I would strongly encourage our coordinators to police the rule on multiple nominations. The regulars at FLC all observe this rule (I have like 7 more lists ready to be nominated) and the only way for a new nominator to learn it is to have their nom auto-archived when a reviewer brings the issue up.
Lastly, I want to clearly state my support for our coordinators in both this issue and in general. It is a thankless job and both PresN and Josh were clear, polite and patient in this case. Your service is truly appreciated by the community. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm approaching things cautiously as I learn the ropes of helping out here, but I'll work to keep an eye out moving forward. For what it's worth though, you can absolutely throw a second nomination up if you want @Gonzo fan2007. You have a good history of addressing concerns and you have two supports at your current nomination. I see no reason you can't put a second one up and basically always have two up like I do. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I was wondering if anyone would oppose encouraging nominators to link to a couple of (recent) FLs that are similar to their current nomination. That way, a reviewer would find it easier to compare and contrast. In the cases, where there is no other similar FL, then the reviewer knows to pay greater attention to the structure of the list and whether information needs to be added/eliminated, since that FLC might be used as a template for future FLCs. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine to encourage, but I by no means want folks to think of it as a requirement. It is, however, often helpful to see how a recently promoted list and one up for nomination compare to each other. I've found it often leads to improvements of the entire series because people find something that can be improved in one article that gets implemented across all of them. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Source reviewer needed?

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone, I noticed that List of cities in Donetsk Oblast does not have a source review but also isn't in the list for those needing a source review. Is it possible to add it so everyone can see? Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Done Josh seems to have done this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure when the list of those needing one is typically updated, but it looks like List of Line of Duty episodes may have been missed out on being listed as well? Several other nominations both above and below it on the nominations page have been listed. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A question about sourcing

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does FLC have the same source requirements as FAC, i.e. sources are required to be "high quality", or do sources just need to meet the less stringent requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Steelkamp (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Steelkamp, hey man im josh has a nice statement they typically put in their source reviews that says something like "sources are appropriate quality for what is being sourced". Having been through a few FACs, I think anecdotally, FLC's sourcing requirements are less stringent. I think we usually leave it to the discretion of the reviewers and expect nominators to defend or replace questionable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
While I don't want to speak on behalf of the entire team, I do believe that sources can be contextually appropriate for some things and not others. Depending on the statement or item being verified, there's some leeway offered. For obviously controversial inclusions or statements, or information that's been contested, more reliable sources will be required. I ask myself, when reviewing, how controversial or likely is this? Do I need a high quality reliable source, or is a newspaper source adequate? I do believe our requirements are not as officially as "strict" as FAC, but at the end of the day the goal is verifiability, and so long as it's verifiable from an appropriately reliable source, I'm personally happy. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Idea: Allowing for multiple lists within a single nomination

Latest comment: 3 months ago15 comments6 people in discussion

A lot of featured lists tend to be in series drawing from the same set of sources. Nominators, having interest in a broad subject area, often try to fill out this entire series into FLs. These also tend to have identical or near-identical formatting and structures.

List of New Orleans Saints seasons, List of Detroit Lions seasons, List of Washington Commanders seasons, and List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons are mainly sourced to Pro-Football-Reference.com, with nearly identical formatting and list 'design'. Where their sources differ, it's minor distinctions about the context of each team. Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season, etc. are similar; all are mainly sourced to NHC reports, all within the same database.

To me, it seems like we're unnecessarily stifling the rate at which we can promote deserving articles to FL status by only allowing a single list within a single nomination. It is not significantly more work to check the sourcing on a dozen articles drawing from the same database than it is to check one. Many of these sorts of lists are so prose-light that they're easy to check through; and that leaves formatting, which again, tends to be identical.

I think folks should be allowed to nominate a batch of lists simultaneously, so long as they are reasonably identical in their format and sourcing; in general, series of lists that would require significantly less effort to review in a batch as opposed to each one individually. I think it's important to note this wouldn't just mean similar subject matter; lists on the individual Academy Awards tend to have wildly varying sources and formats, because the main sourcing here isn't a big database of academy award winners; it's contemporary news coverage, and reviewing one of these doesn't really tell you anything about the others. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We've (or at least I've) considered this before, and rejected it for a few reasons:
  1. While in the best case scenario it would work as described, more likely it results in less rigorous reviewing. What it seems like you're saying is "more formulaic lists in a series take less time to review, so it would be more efficient to nominate them in blocks of 4, which then would take as much time to review as a single non-formulaic list." But, just to pick an example, ChrisTheDude has done over 150 lists of music charts. Each list is a table with a lede, and certainly follows a formula. But even on their latest nomination people find small points to comment on. So, even our most prolific series-of-lists isn't getting and shouldn't get just a rubber-stamp review on each entry. If they nominated them in blocks of 5, would they get the same level of review, or would it become a rubber stamp? I think the latter.
  2. There's no objective way to determine what list series should count. Does the Billboard series count? Probably. Does the World Heritage Sites series? Maybe, but there's a lot of in-table prose that's always unique. What about my animal lists? They're all similar, but often super-long with a lot of little details to check. What about accolade lists- they're all very similar, but by different nominators. Does that count?
  3. If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations, then we incentivize formulaic lists over non-formulaic. I don't think formulaic lists are bad at all, but I don't want to disincentivize the more unique or difficult lists.
  4. If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations and there's no objective criteria, then we give the impression that their nominators are first-class citizens and everyone else has to stay in the slow lane for not being as prolific.
  5. We already have a mechanism for formulaic lists to go faster: they get reviewed quicker. There's a reason ChrisTheDude has so many FLs: his nominations get closed after 3 weeks pretty much on the dot.
I know that we all want good lists to get promoted as fast as possible, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. --PresN 21:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I generally agree with PresN, it seems like a good idea, but in practice likely wouldn't improve the project. Although featured content exists to incentivize, reward and acknowledge excellent articles, it shouldn't be the (only) goal. A good list exists for the benefit of the reader, regardless of whether it has the star in the corner or not. The star doesn't even show up on mobile view! There's no rush to getting the star or any other formal recognition. I currently have 16 active WP:GANs and 2 active WP:FLCs. Do I wish they got reviewed quicker? Sure! But I would prefer a more thorough and thoughtful review over pure speed of promotion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I would LOVE to nominate a batch of lists and get it completed faster, but, I think it would result in the batch being of worse quality than if the nominations were more spread out. The last series I worked on and completed, first-round NFL draft picks, I ended up learning from almost every one that I nominated. The things I learned, and the improvements that were suggested, I went back and applied to all of the other lists I did and kept it in mind for the future. I think had I nominated them together I wouldn't have gotten the quality reviews I did because people would get worn out reviewing the batch. Does that then become part of the gaming of the system? A large batch which would be difficult to properly review in depth all at once?
I agree with PresN on the points they made. It's a good idea in theory, and I (and I think the rest of the team) appreciate, welcome, and encourage any and all suggestions and criticisms, but I don't think this one plays out well in actuality.
Thank you for your suggestion and thank you for caring enough about promoting content (because I know you very genuinely do) to make this post. I want to hear your pitches for how we can be doing better or improve things, so please don't be shy if you have any other thoughts and time. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Seconded - I know my post was "I don't think so", but I'm also genuinely interested in making the process better. To pull out an example, other people pushed for us to close nominations more aggressively a few months back, and I was hesitant, but while it's hard to say that it was causation vs. correlation we've had way more promotions this summer than ever before. (Could also be our endless shilling on Discord.) If people have ideas to improve things- (promote after 2 weeks instead of 3? Allow more simultaneous nominations? Have another 3 delegates?) We would love to hear them. The delegates were chosen for many reasons, but "best opinion havers" wasn't one of them. --PresN 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe something along the lines of "if you have at least two supports and no outstanding concerns, then you can nominate another FLC, regardless of how many you have open"? I feel like that could increase the flow rate of promotions while still making sure that each individual list receives proper scrutiny, though it might not hurt to cap successive nominations to a point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. As PresN mentioned above, the most quickly nominated ones are the most formulaic, and so I think the increased "flow rate" would be unproblematic, as most of the new workload would be easy reviews.
To keep things orderly with higher volume, maybe we could have a separate "bucket" to put ones that are ready for promotion and just need to wait out the clock? Checking people's work seems like a distinct task from reviewing it from scratch, and I'd worry about nominations that really need the review getting lost in a sea of the more formulaic stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
If we were to consider something like that I think it would make sense to have a minimum time between nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Maybe a week, or ten days? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
A week seems reasonable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
If we expand the number of simultaneous nominations, I think we should consider some form of quid pro quo, whether it's the explicitly defined requirements used at DYK, a system of sorting by reviews like at GAN, or something else. If we do add more simultaneous nominations (which I would push against – there is WP:NORUSH to collect accolades), my personal pitch would be to require 2 reviews for every additional simultaneous nomination after the first two, with FLC delegates allowed to block nominations if it seems like the required reviews are too cursory and are gaming the system. I think this is reasonable for people who are engaged at FLC without being too onerous. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's really necessary - we already have a de facto quid pro quo; if you don't review, you don't get reviews very quickly, and if you review a bunch, you hardly have to wait at all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the problem with FLC, as with all the other similar processes, is not enough reviewers. So I think the solutions we should be focusing on is how to get more reviewers. These solutions seem to be more focused on how we can get more FLCs passed quickly, which is an admirable goal, but doesn't necessarily enhance the process. As I said above, the addition of the star doesn't move the dial much for our readers. Some ideas that could be more focused on getting more reviewers:
  • Mandating a talk page notification to at least the most relevant WikiProject (I know article alerts exists, but a personal message notifying a WikiProject of a new FLC and requesting subject matter experts to review it likely could be more impactful)
  • Adding the number of FLCs and number of reviews after each nominator (similar to what is done at WP:GAN, would require a bot and some data analysis)
  • Identifying first-time nominators in the nomination page so that reviewers can focus on those noms first and hopefully bring new FL editors to the process
  • Adding to existing page notices with a big banner laying out that although there is no QPQ, the quickest way to move a nomination forward is to review other nominations
  • Empowering our coordinators to be more quantitative in passing noms (i.e. if a nom has been open for 2 weeks, has 3 or more supports, and has a source review, then promote immediately; this could be made automatic by a bot flagging noms that are ready for promotion)
  • Create a week-long "reviewer drive" every 3 months or so where the regulars press pause on nominating and we focus on reviewing other noms
Just spit-balling some ideas. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment just wanted to add on a little. Right now there are 51 nominations on the FLC page. 14 of those have 3+ supports and are possibly eligible for promotion right now. Only 7 of those 51 have taken longer than one month to resolve as the writing of this comment, and only 2 of those 7 have struggled to find support. Those 2 have struggled a bit for unique reasons (one has predominantly foreign sources, the other is a text-heavy list). I actually think FLC is working pretty well! Kudos to everyone who participates here. I will also note that FLC works really well for editors who review other noms! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think that last part better encapsulates what I was getting at above – quid pro quo is already unofficially followed by more active editors at FLC, and making the requirement official in some way might allow some way for them to be recognized. Maybe it would just be better to be more upfront about how editors who perform reviews will often receive more reviews in return; just a small note in the nomination instructions might encourage new nominators to get more involved right away. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Another nom?

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My current candidate Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1987–88 snooker world rankings/archive1 has been open since 26 July and, at the time of writing this, has three supports and no opposes. Would it be OK for me to make another nomination? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: Typically for someone who has a few successful nominations under their belt, and is in good standing, we're fine to let them make a second nom after a bit of time after the first, so long as everything on their first has already been addressed. You fit this description, so go right ahead. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Text Alignment in Tables

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is anyone familiar with an WP:MOS regarding text alignment in tables. My typical approach has been text (like names, places or things) should be left-aligned, while values (like years, stats, etc) should be centered. I don't really hold nominators to my standard, but I try to make sure that it is consistent (so all text has the same alignment). That said, I noticed that the accessibility features inherently center text, which sometimes isn't desired. Just curious if there is some way to standardize the approach to text alignment? Thanks for any insight! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007: not that I'm particularly familiar with what WP:MOS says about table text alignment but regarding certain values, like population statistics, I was advised in my previous FLNs to align right to make it easier to compare the two population columns. Also, for text, so far I've gone through successfully with multiple FLNs using a combination of both left and center alignment (see this FL for an example; I keep one of the name columns center aligned while the other two text columns are left aligned). That said, going through other articles listed at WP:FL, I think considering the lack of consistency there's no hard policy on this. Probably best to do a case by case approach, with no need to standardize it considering what might work for an FL about one topic probably won't work as well on an FL about another topic. Hope my thoughts help! :) Dan the Animator 02:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I usually just do everything left aligned since you can't do alignment in the visual editor. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_23&oldid=1258968092"