Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Featured lists

Copied here from Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:25, May 20, 2005 (UTC) Just a silly thought, but does anyone else feel that there could be a place for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates? Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea, if only because it would create a set of exemplars—which we badly need—and encourage us to identify the characteristics of a desirable list. --Theo (Talk) 12:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Could start with Wikipedia:What is a featured list. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

And as a first nomination, I'd go with List of North American birds. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well. I've just been bold and created Wikipedia:What is a featured list. Improvement required, I think. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC) and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If we did anything on these lines I would like to be more general than just lists - some groups that can be collectively "good" are lists, wikiprojects, categories, article series .... Pcb21| Pete 13:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that a number of these could be captured under the lists heading Featured groups is open to misinterpretation, I'd fear. Article series would probably need their own voting page. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like the simple Wikipedia:Features. Pcb21| Pete 13:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion for the destination, but the voting page WP:FAC is already big, so other voting pages may still be a good idea. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think that there's a substantial difference in kind between, say, list of popes and list of notable libertarian theorists and authors. Random crap keeps sneaking into the latter, and there's no way of telling if it's comprehensive or not. I think the popes are featurable, the theorists are not. I'm not sure how to express that difference in the criteria, though. Something about the list being verifiably complete. Dave (talk) 13:37, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that many lists will ever be complete, unless you stick with closed sets like popes. Does stability cover it? After all, FAs often have crap added to them after they become featured. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

As I was about to say before being edit conflicted, Wikipedia:What is a featured list is a good start - list of notable libertarian theorists and authors is likely to fail one or more of the comprehensive, stable, and uncontroversial tests. List of Popes, List of British monarchs, List of Presidents of the United States are all likely to be fine, though. More of a problem may be lists of the type set out in President of the United States#Presidential trivia lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict. You've said what I was trying to say, but in proper English. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how a list or category can be of 'featured' quality. First, as Filiocht said, unless you stick with very clear cut, closed sets (like popes) you're bound to run into ambiguities. What is a 'comprehensive' list? Who is to say that the list should include A, B, and C, but not D. Also, a list is, um.. devoid of content. There's not really anything there to differentiate a good list from a bad one. [Raul]

Second, Wikiprojects (and categories) shouldn't be featured at all. The whole idea of 'featured' is to highlight content we feel is good. Wikiprojects are *not* content, they are designed to produce content; categories an lists are associations of content; they are not content in and of themselves →Raul654 14:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit a slight sense of frustration when you have responded this way on each of the three or more occasions I have suggested Wikipedia:Features. Featuring Category:Charles Dickens would not mean we think that that category page is particular pretty or nicely alphabetised. It would mean that we are particularly pleased with all the content in that category (i.e. in the articles listed in that category). Ditto portals, wikiprojects. This is not a difficult point so why do you keep pretending that I am suggesting something I am not?

One likely response is: Well just get all articles in the category featured separately then. My point is that this way encourages bulky articles that all carry sufficient mass to get them featured, even though the ideal layout from the reader perspective is to split things out more into small, more readable, but less "featurable" hierarchies. (There is a case in point with some of Emsworth's articles for example). The ultimate goal of the FA process must be to encourage creation of ideal Wikipedia pages. The current FA process is slightly off-centre in this regard and I firmly believe that Wikipedia:Features is a way to get it in line. Pcb21| Pete 15:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a real-life example on FARC right now - nuclear weapon content has been getting better recently, and this has meant that sub-articles have been started. Thus nuclear weapon is likely to be removed from WP:FA, therefore removing the recognition that the creators of that content deserve! Pcb21| Pete 15:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

More edit conflicts - anyway - don't we run into ambiguities with featured articles already? How can any featured article claim to be comprehensive, since there is always more to say. We deal with the ambiguities by reviewing, discussing, and voting to build a consensus on whether an nominated article meets our standards.

If a list is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised, uncontroversial, meets all applicable standards, and has appropriate images, what else would it have to do to be featured? There are plenty of very good closed-category lists out there. List of popes is a good list. List of cricketers is always likely to remain a bad list. Simple, really.

I can see some justification for a "featured series" - that is, a collection of articles that may not be good enough to be featured articles individual but that are good enough as a collective (cricket is featured, but I hope that many of the other cricket articles are getting there - see Portal:Cricket).

As for Wikiprojects and categories, I can see less justification for some sort of "featured" status - they are really meta-content rather than content (and yes, I do think a list is content). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking of it from the perspective of categories/projects defining a series or collection of articles. Perhaps portals would be ways of doing this (but then again I advocate merging portals and their relevant category page). Pcb21| Pete 15:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see some justification for featuring a "series" - a well-defined, finite (preferably small) group of closely related articles. For example, if we had articles: History of the United States 1776-1860, History of the United States 1860-1914, History of the United States 1814-1945, and History of the United States 1945-Present. Or, for that matter, the kings of England. On the other hand, I dislike the idea of opening up the term 'series' to lists and categories which are massive and potentially endless - list of Gay writers, things having to do with soccer, etc. →Raul654 18:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about the usefulness of this type of meta-project. It seems like a very good way of getting caught up in an endless tangle of criteria squabbles and an avalanche of pointless nominations since our lists are really easy targets for just about any objection about encyclopedic value. Couldn't this somehow be handled within the individual WikiProjects instead? I just can't see this as ever being something we could, for example, feature on the main page.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It seems like two different things are being discussed here.

• Featuring lists (and tables, data pages, and other not-exactly-articles that are nonetheless valuable), and
• featuring collections of articles.

Personally, I think if lists and such are to be featured, they should go on WP:FA and be held to similar standards.

Featuring collections is a different question. The most common situation is when a good article grows and is exploded to subarticles; this happened to nuclear weapon and to spacecraft propulsion, for example. Of these, nuclear weapon is now a mess and shouldn't be featured regardless; spacecraft propulsion was run through the featured process again and is now featured on its own merits. However, it still derives much of its quality from the staggering number of supporting articles on individual methods of spacecraft propulsion, which were part of it when it was first featured.

Perhaps a "Featured topics" section on WP:FA would fit the bill; this would be for featuring whole collections of articles, and would link to an overview article (which should be good, of course, but it would be the quality of the detail articles that would be featured). An example (not of featured quality) would be nuclear technology. --18:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Returning to my original suggestion, I think we should have featured lists for a number of reasons:

1. Lists are part of what we do and we need to raise the overall quality. an FLC process will help to define what good lists should look like and set overall standards.
2. As Raul points out, articles and lists are different; articles are about content while lists are about organising content to make it more useful. At their best, tyhey are also about presenting content in a digest form. FOr instance, List of North American birds tells me how many North American List of North American birds tells me how many North American Ducks, Geese, and Swans there are, what their common and Latin names are, and provides images of two of them. Useful information all.
3. Creating and maintaining lists is a significant part of the contribution made by a lot of editors here. FLs is a way of recognising the excellent work done.
4. Nobody has to get involved in the FLC proccess, so those who thing it is a bad idea can just not get involved, much like everything else that happens here.

I'd just suggest that those that are interested go edit the relevant pages and lets see what emerges. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

One final point; if there are concerns over the value of certain lists, can their resolution not be left to the good sense of those who write the criteria and who vote on the candidates, just as happens on FAC? In other words, can't we just trust in the wiki way? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Red links in FLs

I thin we need to agree an acceptable level of red links and add to the criteria. Personally, I'd oppose a zero-red-link policy, but am open to suggestions after that. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need anything specific - there is nothing in the featured article criteria.

Could it be argued that a list of redlinks is unlikely to be "useful"? A counter-argument is that it is useful to showing which articles relating to a topic need to be created :) Plenty of featured articles have redlinks - that is how the wiki expands. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean about how it encourages editors, but that's like saying stubs are useful because they encourage editors to expand. It's right, but we don't promote stubs to featured status for it. We promote articles (and lists presumably) to featured status once they are already so good they're past needing much editing. That's why the Featured template says "We believe it to be one of the best examples of the Wikipedia community's work. Even so, if you see a way this page can be improved still further, we invite you to contribute." --Dmcdevit 20:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC) (btw, do we have a featured list template yet?)

Well, shouldn't we be judging the list, not the article that the list links to? Surely a "stub" list would be a list with only a few links, rather than a list with redlinks? A full list with redlinks does not need editing - the articles that it links to do.

{{FLC}} for candidates; {{FL}}} for featured lists (when we have any) - we also seem to have (a rather empty) Wikipedia:Featured lists now, although not Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates . -- ALoan (Talk) 22:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon investigation, it seems to me there are in fact much fewer lists in good shape then I would have thought. But anyway, I think we have to realize, the central reason something is featured is for the reader, not the editor. A lot of the things we do here (stub notices, wikify and cleanup tags, etc.) are for the editors assisstance, but once is featured it's because it's a finished, it's solely for the reader now. An excessively redlinked article does not feel done. But it is not just that, one of the main purposes of a list, as seen on Wikipedia:List, is navigation for readers who only know the general topic and are looking for a specific article. With a lot of red links, to anyone who was looking for one of those missing articles, the list is certainly not featured material. --Dmcdevit 16:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

But apparently, as I just noticed, even if I had objected, my vote would be "not valid"! Ahhh... How nice, Filiocht, you put that in there just for me? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it. Look at what's going on: this is what we call discussion, it comes before what we call decision. --Dmcdevit 16:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

My edit was based on the current state of things. If we have that debate, we may well end up changing it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Can we take this to Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list? Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Will do, trying to control sarcasm in the future :) --Dmcdevit 05:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Timetable / requirements to promote

How long are we going to leave candidates on the list before promoting or rejecting them? WP:FAC leave candidates on for five days, and WP:FPC uses a fourteen day timetable, with a requirement for four support votes and a general consensus in favour. Given that traffic is somewhat light at the moment, a weekly (7 day) timetable may be OK too: thoughts? Also, how do we feel about a minimum number of support votes? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Certainly more than 5 days; I'd nearly go 14. I'd say consensus, but this is hard to define with a low number of votes. 66%???? Or just consensus and do not further define? Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, all of the other "featured content" pages (both that I know of - are there any more out there that I don't know about?) require a consensus, and so should we (without needing to define "consensus" - it is one of those elephant things) but WP:FPC imposes an additional 4-supporting-votes minimum. That may be overkill for us at the moment. I was just looking forward to the first couple of nominees being featured in the next few days - with a five-day turnaround, we would deal with everything that is there at the moment; even a seven-day turnaround would allow us to feature List of North American birds tomorrow. I guess we should start with 14 days and shorten it if and when traffic increases. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the point of varying the timetable is just to be able to get as much input as needed. So we should start out with lots of time now (14, or even more days, since we don't get as much traffic as FPC). And if we ever do get as much as FAC, we'll lower it. And about that traffic... has this been advertised on the Wikipedia:Announcements, Wikipedia:Goings-on, Wikipedia:Village pump (news), Wikipedia:Community Portal and the mailing list? I don't remember seeing it, though it's not like those pages are really frequented that often... --Dmcdevit 18:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I put it on the pump and Goings on. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC) And now on announcements. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Can I propose the following:

• A minimum of 3 votes in total, not counting comments.
• Consensus.
• A 14 day timescale, to be revisited on June 20.

Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll stick this on the FLC page and then it can be edited. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I went with 4 votes, including the original nomination. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Weird sections

Currently the edit links don't lead to the correct sections; I almost objected to the Cantos by accident. I don't know enough to try to fix it, though. Mark¹ 07:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think what happened was that you clicked a link just as I was moving some new nominations to the top of the list. Sorry about that. Should be OK now. Filiocht | Blarneyman

Progress to date

After just two weeks, I think we can be very happy with the amount of traffic here. Clearly this process is meeting some kind of need.

It looks like the birds list can be out first FL, but as I nominated it, I'd be happier if someone else did the deed. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Had to set up Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log, then updated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, Wikipedia:Featured lists, Wikipedia:Goings-on, Talk:List of North American birdsWikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2005 - phew! Let me know if I missed something. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Now lied down somewhere. Did you notice we got a write-up on Wikipedia:Signpost? Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now go amend some legal documents, you mean :( Some of us have to work for a living. I saw your write up, Terry. ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sadly, minor poetry does not feed the kids, hence my own career in scientific publishing (believe it or not). Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Lists of lists and lists of wikipedia articles

I'm not sure what I think about lists like List of religious topics and List of lists of mathematical topics. They're really impossible to reference, since instead of being comprehensive, they are a list of topics that wikipedia covers. No external sources appear to have been used to verify that everything is there that should be. As such, anyone can add a semi-important religious figure to the List of religious topics and get away with it, I would think. Where does one draw the line? I don't think these types of lists can possibly be comprehensive, unless someone uses real references to generate the listing. If it's based on something more than "all the topics that wikipedians can currently think of", it might be ok. So I guess my opinion is that if a list doesn't have references, it shouldn't be featured. Other opinions? --Spangineer ∞ 11:20, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. If a list of lists were comprehensive (i.e. has all the lists on WP), it might still not be comprehensive (i.e. what if WP doesn't have all the needed lists?) so featuring it would be misleading. --Dmcdevit 20:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This objection is absurd. How could a reference guarantee that all subjects are there?? It is impossible for all topics to be covered in any encyclopedia. And if there is some reason why a semi-important religious figure should not be listed, the same thing happens as when material that should not be there is put in any Wikipedia article. Why is Wikipedia less able to be "comprehensive" than any external source would be? Hundreds of mathematicians work on Wikipedia. Obviously they cannot make the list complete. A far smaller number of mathematicians work on the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which has a far less complete set of mathematical topics. And why would external references be any more important here than in any article, making sure everything is there that should be? And by the way, why shouldn't a semi-important religious figure be listed? Michael Hardy 00:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me. If you have a list of something, then it is quite possible to ascertain its comprehensiveness, by how well it covers the topic. But, a list of lists on Wikipedia is much different. Because, while it is quite easy to say that all of the lists on Wikipedia are covered, it is another thing to say that all those (listed) lists are comprehensive. What I mean is List of lists of mathematical topics may be comprehensive in that it does have all WP's lists of mathematical topics, but that doesn't mean it is comprehensive in that it covers all of the mathematical topics out there, just the ones in Wikipedia. And another question, is there any reason that a "list of lists" isn't just a category? I'm sure there is, but I can't think of one. --Dmcdevit 00:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood. My objection to your statement stands. "All topics out there" is impossible, not just on Wikipedia, but in Britanica or any professional reference book, and is not desirable anyway. Neither Wikipedia nor any published source can or should ever have "all topics out there". But we will always keep working on what is here. Michael Hardy 01:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm more trying to work this out myself than I am disagreeing with you. So how do you suggest we can judge compehensiveness, since we can't have everything? Are you saying comprehensiveness shouldn't be one of our criteria? --Dmcdevit 05:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and categories are far inferior to topics lists. You can't change the title of a category without editing every article in the category. You cannot adapt the format of a category. You cannot put invisible links to discussion pages into a category for the purpose of having their edits appear when you click on "related changes". Michael Hardy 01:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. --Dmcdevit 05:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Michael–A "List of Religious Topics" that is not clearly defined will not meet the current criteria on numerous accounts - it won't be stable (everyone will be adding their patron saint or favorite missionary or leader of their 13 member religion), and thus, it won't be uncontroversial (because people will argue over what is should be considered a true "Religious topic") and it won't be particularly useful. It won't be comprehensive (how could "comprehensive" be defined in such a list?), and it won't have references. That leaves "well-organized", "accurate", "standards", and "best work" (though I'd argue it isn't anything of the sort).

In my mind, a featurable list is comprehensive. Period. If it's impossible for the list to be comprehensive, then it is impossible for the list to be featured. If the guidelines get changed so that "comprehensive" is not a requirement, I'll vote according to those guidelines, but I will continue to argue that a list that is not comprehensive is not wikipedia's "best work". A list of North American birds is inherently featurable if it has all the species on it that have been observed in the U.S. and Canada. A list of cultural references in a poem is a bit more difficult, but a careful reader can go through and find all of them.

As for the category vs. list of lists, it seems like they are similar in that they are navigational aids, more so than actual content. Lists of lists might be easier to work with on the editor's side, but how are lists of lists any better for the reader? Featured lists should be reader-centered, not editor-centered. That's why we put in the requirement for a "large majority" of blue links, because a list of red links is not useful for a reader. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:02, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Everything I write is always intended to be reader-centered, not editor-centered. To see how lists of lists are better for the reader then categories are, look at the current version of list of lists of mathematical topics, after the recent re-formatting. Also look at list of geometry topics --- you cannot organize a category in that way. Similarly list of combinatorics topics. Similarly list of probability topics. You just cannot organize a category in the way those lists are organized. Michael Hardy 22:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point; that list of geometry topics is alot more useful than a category would be. I'm still not sure about the general math one though, since it's still largely in alphabetical order (except for the glossaries). But even so, it seems like that list serves more as a navigational aid to other math topics, while a list of the presidents of the united states would have more inherent value, in my mind. Should that be a criteria; that a list is "inherently valuable"? That one could be tough to define =). --Spangineer (háblame) 01:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

List of lists of mathematical topics is comprehensive in any reasonable sense of the word. We do not require articles to say everything that can possibly be said on a topic before it's featured on the main page. Nothing like that should be required of featured lists either. Michael Hardy 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I admit that I'm less opposed to the list of lists of math topics than I am to the religious topics one, because it seems to me that it would be less controversial and easier to control, because new articles would tend to fit nicely into what already exists. To my untrained eye, it looks like wikipedia has pretty solid coverage of mathematical topics, but you'd know that better than me. I'm still hesitant about the lack of references though, in principle. We either have to require them or not, and I'm nervous about lists like the List of Popes not having references. Would we make a distinction between different types of lists, requiring that some have references and saying that others don't? Maybe that's a possibility; I'm not sure. You mentioned featured articles; perhaps we could do what they do and say that if you want to claim the list is not comprehensive, say how it is not comprehensive. That could potentially work, I suppose – I'm sure we get FAs that aren't really comprehensive, because there aren't enough experts in the category on wikipedia to verify it. But I still think that the very nature of a list, however, requires a higher standard for comprehensiveness than a featured article, because if it's not comprehensive, it's just a random grouping of topics within a subject.

The religious topics list is just begging for trouble, IMO, because virtually anything could be a religious topic. I don't see it could possibly remain stable, and I think it would be alot more difficult for it to be comprehensive in a "reasonable" sense, since "reasonable" could mean very different things. You might say reasonable means only a few religious figures per major religion (i.e., for Christianity, Jesus, Peter, and Paul), while I'd say that reasonable means Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, David, Moses, Abraham, Mary, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Augustine and Billy Graham. Someone else might say that William Tyndale, Nate Saint, George Müller, and George W. Bush should be in there too. What is "reasonable"? What about a list of famous pop singers? Or a list of big mountains? Or a list of cool movies? Make it something finite, like a list of singers that have sold more than 10 million records or list of mountains with peaks higher than 6,000m or something. That's tough to do with religious topics, I realize.

We need to come to a conclusion on what types of lists are featureable. Must a list be closed in order to be featurable? Or is any non-deletable list inherently acceptable if it meets certain formatting criteria? Incidentally, what are the deletion criteria for a list? Perhaps the battle should be fought there. Also, I really don't think it's fair to call opinions contrary to your own "absurd" at this point, since no one here is trying to be unreasonable and all of this is still pretty new and the details are getting worked out. Phew. Any thoughts on all my jabbering? --Spangineer (háblame) 01:51, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, any list that is not a candidate for eletion should be eligible for featuring. We must ensure that our criteria do not conflict with that. --Theo (Talk) 07:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree, and propose that the criterion on references be edited to include the words "where appropriate", for instance. I had hoped that this would develop into a forum for encouraging list improvement, not a scholastic hair-splitting group. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

One thing that hasn't been raised is: Isn't a list of lists (essentially just documenting what exists in Wikipedia) inherently non-creative, and therefore not featurable. Just raising the question, as it's what initially struck me, though I'm not really convinced either way. --Dmcdevit 08:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm not trying to unnecessarily split hairs; it just seems to me that we have two fundamentally different types of lists. One type can be comprehensive, and the other can often get close but cannot be perfectly comprehensive. The first looks to me like real content, and the second looks to me like a navigational aid (i.e. non-creative, to use Dmcdevit's words), albeit one that can be superior to a category. I like featuring the first; I don't like featuring the second. Eh, maybe it's just better for wikipedia if allow any nondeletable list to be featured. But that begs the quesion: does anyone know what the guidelines for deleting a list are? I can't find anything on WP:DP. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ha, what about List of lists of lists? Isn't this getting all a bit self-referential? Is a list of lists actually all that useful? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For navigation, yes. Other than that, not sure. Maybe a "featured navigational tool" is in order for categories and lists that cannot be perfectly comprehensive. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

<ramble, ramble>See the list I'm working on. I'd like to be able to make that a featured list, but it certainly can't be verifiably comprehensive. To what extent would a list of folk, classical and popular music styles and instruments by country have to be comprehensive to be featurable? I can't prove I have an exhaustive list (how to prove there's no such thing as a notable Andorran rock scene?), and there may even be probable holes (what if I can't find the name of a single style of Vanuatuan folk music?). From the discussion above, it seems some people are actually pushing for a much higher standard of comprehensivity than FA -- the only recently featured grunge music doesn't go into the effect grunge had on Japanese rock, for example, barely mentions the influential Sub Pop record label and doesn't go into a whole lot of details on record sales, especially outside of the United States (was grunge popular in Africa anywhere? inquiring minds want to know...). The fact that an article can still be expanded doesn't mean it can't be featured, and I don't see why the same can't apply to a list.

Maybe it will be really easy for someone to get list of Presidents of Somaliland to featured-level, because it's only three items, but who cares? If we're going to have a list of Presidents of Somaliland, let's use the Featured List Project to encourage someone to make it the best list of Presidents of Somaliland it can be. So maybe FLs will always be kind of silly, with weird lists on it -- half the fun of Wikipedia is finding all kinds of stuff you never would have thought to look for. We don't have to pretend a Featured List is just like a Featured Article, but in list-form.

A list of lists of mathematical topics is useful, and should be as complete as it can be. To make that list featurable, I'd actually like to see something other than straight alphabetical order, such as groupings by topic, or at least captions briefly explaining each item. (e.g. why is list of knots considered a mathematical topic?) A category puts articles in alphabetical order, but a list can provide context and aid in navigation for people who don't already know the name of what they're looking for. Tuf-Kat 06:11, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Let's say I agree with you on the math topics list of lists and think that it's featureable if it were to be organized to make it more useful. And let's say that I think your list is featureable. BTW, both of these hypotheticals aren't far from the truth, especially the latter. My question is, what is the difference between those two lists and the religious topics list? Or the fictional bears list? I'm just really skeptical about the religious topics list being featureable. Maybe it is; I don't know. Maybe if it was a list of lists, I'd feel better about it. Should we go with the same comprehensiveness requirement as FA; namely that objections must be actionable? So if I say that it's not comprehensive, I have to know of something it's missing. I'm not sure I like it, and I'll probably continue to prefer lists that are perfectly comprehensive, but eh, maybe it's just better open FLC up in order to encourage the creation and improvement of lists like yours, which while not comprehensive, are still extremely interesting and helpful. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think both the list of fictional bears and list of religious topics should be featureable. While fictional bears are trivial, I'd rather have a great list of them that a crappy one. Similarly, with the list of religious topics, I think it can be useful and we should encourage someone to make it more so (I don't think a straight alphabetical list is very helpful). Tuf-Kat 13:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position with your votes on the candidates in question. Take a look at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list; Docu proposed rewording the comprehensiveness requirement, and also, we need to discuss the requirement for references for lists like the list of lists of math topics. --Spangineer (háblame) 12:59, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Future nominee, maybe

I recently asked for input about User:TUF-KAT/List of genres of music by region, a list which I had wanted to nominate for this page. I'm just posting a note here too because I didn't get much feedback at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list. Tuf-Kat 02:44, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for the delay in responding. The colours have made a big difference to the readability. I still would like to see a lead section. A brief overview and an explanation of the colums would be good. Finally, is it just me or is thare a load of meaningless stuff appearing between the final entry and the refs section for anyone else? Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:04, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, should've explained that. I copied the template a whole bunch of times and have just been slowly filling it in. Those're just the empty rows. Tuf-Kat 20:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I added a lead section with an explanation of the columns. Please think of a way to better explain the "see also" column -- the articles there are actually chosen quite simply and unremarkably, but it's hard to put that in words. Another question, do you think images would enhance this list? There are a few instruments, like the kora, marimba and balafon, that are sometimes said to be music regions in themselves (i.e. Honduras is part of the Marimba Belt), but OTOH, this list is going to be plenty big and plenty hard on the people with slow connections. Tuf-Kat 20:47, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, and while you're at it, how does List of countries where UN peacekeepers are currently deployed look? Saw it created on RC patrol earlier today, and I whipped up a decent list, I think. --Dmcdevit 08:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

looks good. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I like it too. I equalized the column widths so that they are the same in all the sections; if you don't like it, a revert won't offend me. Ah, and perhaps we should start Wikipedia:List Peer Review. =) --Spangineer (háblame) 12:54, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it looks better. :) --Dmcdevit 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and it's nominated now. --Dmcdevit 14:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of British monarchs

I am, quite unilaterally I'm afraid, extending the deadline for this, as User:ALoan has indicated a willingness to address some of the issues raised. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Does ALoan have a time table for this? Or is this something that could be renominated in a couple weeks? --Spangineer (háblame) 18:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - I have been frighteningly busy last week (working until 4am three days in a row over the weekend is bad for you). I may have time this week. I'm grateful for Filiocht's indulgence, but would not want to trespass on everyone's goodwill - it may be better to delete it and try again later. I have, at least, moved it to List of monarchs of England and Scotland, as requested... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yikes, that's pretty rough. It's not hurting anything at the bottom of the page, but it's soon time to promote Cantos, so that's why I was wondering. But not to worry, some more time shouldn't cause any problems. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. It can always come back again. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject and timelines

Would anybody be interested in setting out standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists? We could have specified guidelines for kinds of lists, like lists of officeholders, trivia lists, etc? Also, could timelines be considered a list for this project's purposes? (a list of themed dates in chronological order) Tuf-Kat 01:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea... it seems like we are going to have different requirements on FLC for different types of lists (a "mostly comprehensive" list of presidents of the U.S. isn't going to cut it, but a "mostly comprehensive" list of fictional bears might get more support). Working out the references issue would be helpful too. As for timelines, I think they would be useful as well – I'm not sure that I've seen a good example of one on Wikipedia, so they're definitely needed. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

And lines of succession as well. --Dmcdevit 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think timelines is quite a good idea. The general idea I think should be to have quality content that is not, and cannot be by its nature, in the form of prose.--Pharos 01:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cantos list

This has been here for 15 days now. For obvious reasons, I'm reluctant to be the one to deal with it. Can anyone help out? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I did it right. Updated the nom page, removing it, updated the log page, adding the discussion, and updated the FL page adding its name. Since we don't have a Raul, can you put up instructions on promoting somewhere so anyone can be sure to do it right? --Dmcdevit 07:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transclusion

I have copied the transclusion technique that we use for WP:FAC to this page as it makes it easier to follow individual nominations, jguk 23:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the the already logged nominations be transcluded as well, since the templates link to them now? Also, do we have a failed FLC template like FAC, because currently it looks like all the failed ones still have the candidate template. --Dmcdevit 06:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I transcluded all the existing nominations as part of setting it all up. I haven't transcluded the old nominations though as I didn't see the point. Fair point about the failed FLC template, jguk 07:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft topics

As I'm not sure where else to talk about lists, I figure that I'd tell everyone here that the Wikipedia Microsoft notice board has a thread about a list of Microsoft topics (see WP:MSNB#Lists). If anyone would be able to assist, we would appreciate it. Also, drop a note to say "Hi" if you do! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Timetable / requirements to promote (2)

Have we now reached a level of traffic where the 14 days could be cut to say 10? Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

10 day minimum would probably work, but if there's a list that actively being worked on after day ten, I'd say leave it for a bit. FAC seems to operate with the general guideline being two weeks, but some get promoted faster or slower than that. --Spangineer (háblame) 10:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

AIUI, Raul's rule of thumb for FAC promotions is at least 4 supports after a minimum of 5 days with no significant objections; FACs may be left another 5 days or more to gather support or for objections to be dealt with. But yes, I think we could live with reducing the minimum time from 14 days to 10 days here. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold, so. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

Just in case you think I (we) are obsessed with lists relating to cricket, my personal featured wishlist goes much wider. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear - perhaps we should rename this "Featured cricket list candidates" ... As penance, perhaps I should look again at List of kings of Burundi or List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was about to comment on that =). But since the best way to solve that problem is nominate other lists, and since I haven't nominated any yet, I guess I shouldn't be talking. I'm just trying to figure out how to make an interesting list on the subject close to my heart. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Some of the lists of chemical elements look quite good - e.g. List of elements by name, Timeline of chemical element discovery - but need references.

Do we think Periodic table (huge) is a list? If so, it is excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I'll take on List of elements by name this weekend. Needs a whole boatload of reformatting, pretty table, more info, etc. Not sure about the periodic table; we do like tables of late (not too many true "lists"), and all that is is a specially organized table. I'd say sure, it counts, based on precedence. And all that one needs is references and a short lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:13, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Since we have list of popes, I recently saw list of popes (graphical). It shouldn't take much work to make it featured status. --Dmcdevit 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh wow - there is so much excellent stuff out there. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Family trees

I would assume we'll accept family trees, like English monarchs family tree, British monarchs' family tree, Scipio-Paullus-Gracchus family tree, etc. Take a look at the full list at list of family trees. As long as we give many of these leads and references, they look like great candidates. Kudos to Muriel Gottrop! --Dmcdevit 30 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

It would be good to see Muriel's work in this area recognised. Filiocht | Talk July 1, 2005 07:13 (UTC)

They are great, but aren't many of them images rather than lists? -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

Yes they are lists, but what about that periodic table? Phoenix2 4th of July! 4 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Well, our criteria require a featured list to be useful (that is, bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interested to a user researching that topic) and well-constructed (that is, easy to navigate and find [other] articles on). I interpret this as requiring a list to have ordered text in a list or tabular format.

English monarchs family tree includes three large (and excellent) .PNGs, but that is pretty much all it contains. It does not link together other articles: in particular, there are no links to articles about the people mentioned. The images are great, but wouldn't it be more natural for them to be featured pictures? -- ALoan (Talk) 4 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

Hadn't even thought of that. No links, that's a problem. I'm not a technical person, but does anyone know if the file could be alteered to make links? --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

• I agree with Aloan. As for the links the answer is No! To insert links you have to make something like [1] which is too much for me to handle... muriel@pt 5 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

Ah, now, that is a list: nowhere near as nice to look at as your diagrams, but perhaps more "useful" and "well-contructed" :) If someone is looking for something to do, perhaps they could turn muriel's lovely diagrams into nasty (but linked) preformatted text... -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)

Away

Filiocht is away this week; I am going to be very busy at work for the next few weeks, and in any event feel the need for a Wikibreak, so will be away (trying not to read, let alone edit) until 1 August, possibly later. Please would someone take good care of WP:FLC and WP:FL in our absence. The main thing is to archive nominations after 10 days or so, filing in the current "featured log" or "failed log" as appropraite. (NB - this does not need admin powers.) -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)

I'll help out, but I have a feeling we could make this a group effort. --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 19:39 (UTC)

It all seems to be going quite well, although contributions seem to be slowing down. If anyone is looking for more "easy wins" in terms of pretty good existing lists, Category:Lists and its sub-categories are good places to browse. For example, Hilbert's problems looks good to me already: it even has references! I'll pop in occasionally, but I am still "away" for the next couple of weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

FLs unready for nomination

I've noticed that a lot of the lists nominated for featured status recently have lacked a certain finished, polished quality. Many of them have undergone heavy editing while under nomination. Of course, this is one of the benefits of becoming a featured list candidate, more people see the list in question and improve it. However, some articles are clearly not ready for FLC and their nomination only leads to unstable articles and extended nominations that last while the lists undergo extensive editing. I think the featured list criteria should specify that lists should spend some time on peer review before being nominated. Any thoughts? --Sophitus 17:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with where we are at present as featured lists are a new concept. We're still learning about what the standards are. It seems the answer is variable at present - eg New Zealand cricket captains gets blasted for not having more pictures, yet the elements lists pass easily without pictures. A longer process on here helps us develop standards over a period of time - secreting that discussion on peer review (which, quite frankly has little readership anyway) is unlikely to help much. Once FLs are more established, things may change, jguk 18:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • First, the issue of pictures for elements lists was discussed in earlier nominations. I remember bringing it up once and plenty of people felt that there was no reasonable picture that could go with an element list. But to get back to the general question, I feel you may be right. I tend to forget that FL is relatively new. It's just that I look at featured articles, see the rigorous standards to which those are held, and think that we can do better at FLC. Perhaps the solution is to get more participation here so we can turn out better FLs and find good standards to which to hold them. --Sophitus 18:48, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • My point is really that standards are still evolving (which is a good thing since FLs are new things). It wasn't meant to be a criticism of the elements lists. Better participation would, of course, be better. Should we advertise? jguk 18:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, let's get a full-page ad in the Signpost. But honestly, how would one get more participation? --Sophitus 00:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• The New Zealand list didn't get "blasted", we just merely suggested that it would look more visually appealing with a couple more pictures. Phoenix2 18:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • My understanding was that you had an objection, rather than a support and a suggestion for making the list even better. But that's by the by. My real point is more that standards are still evolving, and are not fully consistent at this stage. This isn't a bad thing, it's quite natural until we're all used to what a featured list can and should be. Featured article standards continue to develop, even though the concept of a "featured article" is a well established one. I think as we are in the early days of lists, it's best to have these discussions up front on the WP:FLC page, which is why I don't think recommending lists always go to WP:PR first isn't appropriate at this stage, jguk 18:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The only reason I objected was because I had previously suggested more pictures and it seems to have gone unnoticed. Phoenix2 03:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Possible featured lists

How do we feel about some of the lists mentioned at Wikipedia:Unusual articles?

For example, List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded" or List of exclamations used by Captain Haddock both look quite good and reasoanbly comprehensive. It should not be too hard to add references or images where required. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In general, I'm all for having weird FLs. There are some weird featured articles, so why not weird featured lists? Specific comments on the two you mentioned: The latter's first sentence doesn't lend itself to convincing me that it is comprehensive. It seems like it is a list that can be fully comprehensive, so I think with some explanation it will be acceptable. It's essentially the same type of list as List of cultural references in The Cantos, so I have no problem with it. I'm more hesitant about the former, since from the beginning I haven't been a big fan of featuring open lists. In a perfect world, there would be a source that provides a listing of all of them, or there would be several sources that have listings of them and this is a compilation of them. I'm not sure if that's the case with these (some notes would be nice directing us to the reference used for each entry). --Spangineer (háblame) 18:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I presume you could search a large library database and hope to pick up any unmentioned ones for the former list, and add the search as a reference (or would that be "original research"?); I agree that the latter looks pretty good: query what the author thinks is missing. It is not entirely clear that the list of books is complete, though. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone did that in several large databases, I wouldn't object. I'm not sure if that's original research or not, but I for one wouldn't require that it be explicitly referenced in the article. A note on the talk page would be good enough for me. --Spangineer (háblame) 19:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Another crop of potential FLCs, from Category:Lists and sub-categories, and Wikipedia:List of lists, which lists around 12,350 "List of...", "Lists of..." and "Table of..." articles:

• Orders of magnitude (time) (plus length, mass, etc.)
• ITU letter codes
• List of international license plate codes (even has a reference!)
• List of FIFA country codes
• List of IOC country codes
• List of ISO country codes (surely should be merged with ISO 3166-1)
• List of NATO country codes
• Table of vowels and List of vowels
• Jupiter's natural satellites (plus Saturn, etc.)
• List of Church of England dioceses
• List of Archbishops of Canterbury
• List of Church of England dioceses
• List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom
• National parks of the United Kingdom
• List of United Kingdom dialling codes

• List of Solar system objects (needs some work)

Not so sure:

• List of XML and HTML character entity references (although it has several good references)
• New towns in the United Kingdom
• Sunday Times Rich List 2005

Many of these could be polished up to FL standard in quick time, if anyone is looking for something to do. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Red links

Take a look at this: List of political parties in India. I can neaten it up and make it presentable, but is it worth featuring? There are many red links which may hamper it being featured. I don't think its worth creating an article for each link, some parties are really very small. Any suggestions on how to improve it and if it is feasible? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with de-linking the unrecognised parties that have no article. The other improvements would be some idea of what the politics of each party are. The language needs improving too - it doesn't quite look right. Finally, get rid of the self-reference. Just state what you're doing, no need to explain how it differs from other WP articles, jguk 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

French Revolution

Could I prevail on someone who has been involved in this project to weigh in at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of people associated with the French Revolution/archive1? So far, the only feedback I've gotten is from someone who seems to be telling me that the list inherently can't be featured, but is citing reasons that would also eliminate the (featured) Cantos list, so I have a hard time believing this is authoritative. Or was that list wrongly featured? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Naming candidates in the edit summaries

Hi! I visit the featured lists and featured list candidates once in a while. In the meantime, it would be great if actual list names were mentioned in the edit summaries of the FL and FLC during nominations and promotions, in addition to "promote one more" etc. Could this be arranged? --Eddi (Talk) 14:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists and articles

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Featured lists and articles: both. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

List of rulers

Hi,

I started to add a rulers.org entry for every country. I was at Azerbaijan when I received a message advising me not to do so for understandable reasons. Read the thread to get the idea.

I'm posting here because there is some potential for a list and maybe some people with more time to share than me would like to create such a List of rulers, worldwide and “History-wide”. Reply to David Latapie 20:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

FLRC

It had to happen eventually: the first featured list removal candidate has been nominated - see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"Official oppose"

I'd like to have it explained to me what an Official oppose is, who can make them, and on what authority. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

At present there are two de facto promoters and failers of featured list candidates, ALoan and myself, though I'm sure we'd welcome others to the role. Largely it's an automated process - a nomination with five supports and no opposes will be promoted, one with two supports and three opposes will be failed. Once in a while, there's a need for a judgment call, which is sometimes to leave the nomination open for a few more days to allow for more comment, and sometimes used to promote or fail lists. There are, however, basic requirements to a featured list, and References is an essential requirement. When about to promote two lists yesterday I noticed that in one case there were no references, and in another, there appeared to be inadequate references. For that reason I delayed promoting these lists for four days to allow that issue to be addressed. Had there been full references, I would have promoted them (they clearly have sufficient support for promotion once references have been added). At present, it seems some think I have been over-eager in my request for more refs to the tube station list. I'm happy to bow to the community - and at present I fully expect that I'll be in a position to promote both lists on Christmas Day (once the additional four days I have allowed have expired), jguk 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, jguk and I have historically made most of the promotion decisions, but that is rarely a difficult task and anyone could do it if they felt so inclined. We don't have a ratified director like Raul654 on WP:FAC or the Bureaucrats on WP:RFA, and I don't think we really need one (many pages seem to get by without a specific person being is anyone "in charge" - WP:FPC or WP:DR or WP:AFD). I'm also not convinced that we need "official" oppose votes, any more than "strong" or "weak" support of opposition means very much. A plain "oppose" is sufficient for me. (If we are going to have "official" opposition, I think Filiocht should be on the list, as he created this page). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposing

Also, the criteria for lists include the fact that it must have a majority of blue links. If the majority of blue links in a candidate are links to stub articles, is someone allowed to object on that rationale? IMO, it doesn't strictly violate the letter of the criteria, but it does violate the spirit of them. There seem to be several people, please don't name names, who create a bunch of short stubs to blue a bunch of red links. Tell me that people don't do that so they can artificially meet featured list criteria. Tell me that people create featurable lists to show off the best of Wikipedia, rather than doing it for its own sake. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This practice is quite common in FAC too, where it is generally accepted. I personally don't like it, but as long as the stubs are informative enough... I wouldn't consider it a strong enough reason why to oppose a nomination. But that's me. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lists that don't have links

This issue came up in the recently nominated List of Mega Man weapons... some lists simply don't link to any articles, because the list in itself is a compilation of the information on the subject. Such lists frequently occur as a result of merging articles, for instance in the area of fiction or lesser-known media figures (e.g. candidates of Some Show), or other items that have little information on them, such as minor planetoids. Is there any particular reason why such a list cannot become featured? If not I propose amending the What Is page accordingly. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why that should be a problem. We certainly shouldn't be creating links if decisions have already been taken that those articles are better dealt with in a single list format. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Some lists are informative enough, and even provide external links to related items. -Zero^Talk 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you think?

I don't want to put this through featured list candidacy yet, but wondered what you guys thought (need a peer review process). I am not very well versed with lists, and am currently creating this: List of Anuran families. What do you all think? What is required to put it through to featured list? I would also like to create more columns, but cannot for the life of me think of anything to add. Any ideas? --liquidGhoul 10:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PR is available for lists as well as articles. But that is a rather nice list already - I doubt that WP:PR would add much, but it may be worth trying.

Having an image for each entry would be nice, as well as eliminating the redlinks, and adding example species for each line. You will also need some references. Good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will do WP:PR, for some reason it didn't cross my mind. As for the photos, I am really trying. User:Pstevendactylus is going to the rainforest, and he said he is going to try and get some glass frogs. Hopefully other families as well. He has quite a collection of photos, but has to put time which he doesn't have to upload them. I would like to only get good licence photos, and want to completely avoid any other types, however this does make it hard for families like Rheobatrachidae which haven't been seen since the early 1980s. --liquidGhoul 11:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nature of List (and a Featured List)

List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms is an extremely strong article and undeniably a list. However, the nature of the article is to present information in text form with the storms listed, and not all of the storms have their own separate articles. While I am currently considering nominating it as a featured list, I'm not entirely certain that it fits the criteria of being a list in the Wikipedia sense. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 02:19 (UTC)

A strong article/list indeed. The FL criteria says: ... must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links). Here we have 17 or the 30 list items linked. But it is so well done and presented, I'd be voting support, so my advice would be list it and see what happens. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it. 69.86.17.202 And logged in. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 03:46 (UTC)

Who administers the promotion?

Does an admin officially have to change the status of the FLC? It seems that a normal editor can simply stick the template into place? Anyway,

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chief Ministers of India - no votes
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tallest structures in Paris - (6-2) including nominator vote
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Swimming World Swimmers of the Year - (4-0) excluding nominator

have all passed the 10 day mark

Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Of recent times ALoan and Rune.welsh have been doing the promotions and archiving, but technically anyone can do it and you don't have to be an administrator -- Ian ≡ talk 04:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As Ian says, in principle, anyone can do it when they see that it needs doing (we are not quite to hide-bound by rules and regulations as the WP:FA crew ;). The instructions are on the page; no admin abilities are needed to do any of the updating. But if you are going to do it, please make sure you do all of the updating (archiving, talk pages, WP:GO, etc), otherwise it all gets rather messy. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

100th FL

Depending on how you count, we have either just passed, or will reach in the next few days, the 100th featured list. See Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Age

How old should a list be before it is put forward for nomination; I ask specifically about Nuclear power by country, which seems to fulfil all the FL criteria, but was only created today. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in nominating "fresh" lists as long as they meet the requirements. Actually there was one list nominated I believe the second day it was created, but it failed. Not because it was too new, but because it failed the requirements, especially citing references. I think the list above is really good and it gets my support. Renata 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I nominated this one day after it was created(I did some sandbox work before that tho). It seems to be doing well, with no concerns about the list(so far). I don't beleive age should be a factor. Joe I 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Red link discussion

I have started a discussion on red links here, but am guessing that not many people are watching the page. If you would like to discuss it, please do. Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured? lists

How can they be featured if they won't be displayed at the Main Page? --Howard the Duck 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they couldn't be featured. Seems worth bringing up with the people who work on the Main Page. -- Samuel Wantman 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do now realize that this was the wrong place to ask. Perhaps this should be at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. --Howard the Duck 09:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not too surprisingly (having authored two FL myself), I'd support this, strongly. —Nightstallion (?) 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that myself the other day. Maybe we can convince some people to get some real-state on the Main Page during the weekends or so. I'll contact Raul654 to see what can be done. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The opposition to this is where should the FLs be placed, or if they'll replace a part of the main page. --Howard the Duck 07:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Pictures existed long before they got a permanent spot on the Main Page (even before they got a temporary spot at weekends). "Featured" simply means selected as representing the best of Wikipedia, having met the relevant criteria.

It should be possible in principle for a Featured List to replace one of the other items on the Main Page. Traditionally, these sort of ideas have been trialled at weekends. Ideally, a Featured List could replace Today's Featured Article on Saturday and/or Sunday, since the lists and articles are essentially comlpementary, but I doubt Raul654 will like that :) Perhaps a Featured List could replace DYK, like the Featured Picture used to at weekends; or perhaps the Featured Picture could be replaced by a Featured List at weekends? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the best idea might be to replace featured pictures on weekends. —Nightstallion (?) 11:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from concerns related to where on the Main Page should we put FLs, Raul654 thinks lists may not be as engaging for the readers as regular articles. To some extent he's got a point there (think of all the cricket lists, which tend not have much prose) but there are some others which could be quite interesting, like the lists of birds. In any case, I'd go for a weekend spot, probably in place of DYK which recently has had some problems with being updated regularly. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

List of countries with nuclear weapons is a great candidate for the Main page. CG 16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That one would stand a decent chance on FAC, if it were refactored slightly to make it look a little less of a list. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have raised this on Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This hasn't seen too much further action on Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. I've tried to urge them on, but nothing's really taken off. Anybody with a bit more influence care to try something to get lists featured? As an author of 2, it would be really fantastic to see… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images on lists

Regulars of FLC may be interested in a (more or less) current Request for Comments regarding the use of fair use images in lists. It can be found at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

New collaboration

I wrote the some post in WP:FL, but it seems that that page isn't watched much. Well, what do you think about creating a collaboration which aims at promoting lists to FL status? CG 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations on lists of people after each name?

I've been working on getting List of Oregon State University people up to FL status and I submitted it for peer review. One of the comments was that each name should have an inline citation after it instead of simply listing all the refs at the bottom as general references. Is this in fact what should be done? For all the football players, that would be one VERY long list of ^{a b c d e f} etc. next to the reference. I'm not sure what it does past 26, but it would far exceed that. VegaDark 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think Sandy's comments on inline citations are fair. However, there are no rules as to how to do the citations, see WP:CITE. They don't have to be hyperlinked superscripts leading to backward-hyperlinked notes. Some variant of the Harvard ref might be appropriate. I'm not familiar with that style and may be unsuitable if there is no name or date. The OSU Famous Alumni page would appear to be written by George P. Edmonston Jr but there is no date. You could invent your own variation, if it is understandable: "Edmonston, OSU Alumni". Then make sure your references at the bottom can be easily tied back to the citation in the text. Colin°^Talk 08:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

10 days?

I nominated Narnian timeline for FL status on 13 November and it was closed 23 November, after 10 days, as is policy. However, only one person had commented on it (and it wasn't a "support" or "object" vote either, just a comment which I think I resolved). I feel that failing a nomination after 10 days makes no sense, it may be that people just didn't see it or that people declined to comment on it. I think a nomination should be left until some sort of consensus is reached -- or at least one vote is made. Failing it based on lack of participation, rather than quality, is self-contradictory.--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always considered lack of participation as a sign that the list is not ready yet. We have many experienced regulars in FLC already as to be able to afford that assumption. In any case, advertising of nominations is allowed as long as it does not ask people to vote one way or the other. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the point, even though I don't entirely agree. I'll go put a notice in at the VP and Esperanza, and renominate it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm… I must have been out of touch at ESP and the VP for a while. Isn't there some sort of place where you can list bulletins about goings-on in the community? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some sort of Fiction wikiproject might be more appropriate than a general forum, which might grow tired if every featured candidate was advertised. Colin°^Talk 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See, but a Fiction WP might be biased. Oh, well. There is still one issue in need of citing in the list. I'm searching for a reference now. I'll wait till I find it and then just renominate it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some members of relevant WikiProjects may be slightly biased, in terms of lending support to articles within their scope where it may not be deserved, but they also tend to be the most knowledgeable about the subject, its references, etc. If an article does not generate much interest within 10 days, it is usually an indication that it is not good enough, although most nominators receive some feedback for things that could be improved. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the 4 support rule strictly enforced anyway? List of Indian ODI cricketers passed despite having only three, and with Tintin pointing out that the list was not up to date as was asserted in the text. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When I promote, yes - although I have been known on occasion to add my support to make 3 (plus nominator makes 4) before promoting. Perhaps User:Rune.welsh's promotion included an implicit "support", but you would have to ask him to know for sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My support is usually implied (I don't bother editing the nomination because promotion takes many clicks already). In cases when I oppose, I let the nomination run a little more. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's encouraging. I'll go inquire at the Fiction WikiProject. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I resubmitted the article after referencing it, and hope you'll all take a look at it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

promotion proceedure

In the section "To archive a nomination", shouldn't there be somethign about putting {{Featured list}} in the article itself? I ask because List of Saskatchewan general elections didn't get this added when it was promoted (I've since added it myself). Tompw 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't do that myself, since I don't quite like the idea of adding metadata to the articles. Usually other people do it after the week's Signpost goes live. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on possible candidate?

The opera corpus. Problems: As a straight-out comrehensive list of simple factts, it's verifiable by any encyclopedia of music, but not significantly cited as that would be awkward, given the facts are not disputed. Is it worth submitting? Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You still need to explicitly cite your source(s) at the end of the article. If one source has been used for the whole list, you need to make sure it is not a copyvio to duplicate it here. Other than that the number of redlinks may be an issue. Other reviewers may come up with their own ideas of how to improve this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• nod* pretty sure it's actually compiled from several, as everyone can expand it. I'll see if I can find a source or sources with everything. Cheers! Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility for FL status

There's been some discussion following a failed GA nomination as to whether or not English football league system would be eligable for FL status. My main concern is whether or not it contains too much prose before to be eligable to be a "list"... what do people think? Tompw (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of participation

I've notied of late that more and more articles are not makign the cut for FL status. Not because they're bad lists, but because there aren't enough people voting on them. Articles will go two weeks with two votes. This shows me that there's a problem somewhere, and I'm thinking less and less it's due to the lists themselves. Do we need to try and get more people to be regulars here? What should be done with this? As far as I know FA and FP never have this problem. --Wizardman 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for more reviewers over at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Is there anywhere else we should try? Colin°^Talk 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A related problem is lists that have enough support votes and enoguh time has elapsed, but don't get promoted. I would suggest maybe leaving messages on previous voters' talk pages, askign them to vote on at least one page. Tompw (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is some images better than no images?

If I cannot find images for every member of a list, would it be better to not have images for any of them to keep the list looking consistent? I'm working on the {{Canadian First Ministers}}, and for some provinces I cannot find images for all premiers. Some already-featured lists of heads of government have reached featured status without having pictures of every person, so a complete set of images is not needed for nomination. Would a list be more likely to pass if it had no images at all and looked internaly consistent rather than including all the images I could find? --Arctic Gnome 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for "none." Because they strech out the table and don't look too pleasing. Renata 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a quick reply, thanks. In terms of images stretching out the table, I should point out that before I submit any more of the lists I will fill out the table with more information (like links to elections) like there is on List of Prime Ministers of Canada, so the columns beside the images won't be all empty space. Not sure if that makes a difference to your opinion, but it's something to keep in mind. --Arctic Gnome 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a FL "has images if they are appropriate to the subject", so I would say some images is definately better than no images. In fact, if a list would benefit from an image or images (and they exsist), then their absence would could against their candidacy. Tompw (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have images for all but a few, some kind of placeholder image or blank space is appropriate. If you lack images for many, how about having the images in a table or gallery by themselves (just images, with captions). If you have images for only a few, then they might be appropriate as regular thumbnails in the lead and througout the list. --129.241.214.53 12:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

10 days? Propose change

That's awfully short when you look at participation here. What would be people's general opinion if I were to change it to 14 days? (Many are up 14 days or so anyway, so the policy change would be somewhat superficial). I won't if there's some opposition, but I don't see the harm.--Wizardman 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could do something like AfD, where if there aren't enough contributors to generate consensus then it is relisted at the top? I generally only contribute to FLC topics that I have some experience with but I would try and make the effort to review any that are relisted. VegaDark 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea, probably a better idea than what I have. Technically FAC's do that as well, so that shouldn't cause any dispute.--Wizardman 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in increasing the minimum to more than ten days. The guidelines already say that if a list has not gathered enough support votes in ten days, then it just stays there for a short additional peroid. (Assumeing no ongoing objections) Increasing the minimum would just mean that lists with enough support votes hang around for longer. Tompw (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have some way of indicating that a list has gone into extra-time. By "relisted", I assume you don't intend to reset the clock? Could we have some banner or bold text saying e.g. "This FL candidate is now in extra time." Colin°^Talk 13:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my main problem is about half the FL's seem to fail solely due to lack of votes. I'm not sure what to do exactly, but the way it is now is troubling. Perhaps changing it from 10 days to "after sufficient votes and time" might help? Cloins idea isn't to bad, I just don't want things failing solely due to lack of votes.--Wizardman 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with leaving nominations for additional time is that it doesn't prohibit from failing if the sufficient amount of votes is yet to be gathered. This recently occurred to Canadian Newsmaker of the Year (Time), which failed 20 days after the original nomination with a single support. My solution to this would be changing the promotion time to "whenever there appears to be consensus" as already done on WP:FPOC and WP:FAC. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say "whenever there appears to be consensus, and at least 10 days". There should be a lower limit to allow the more infrequent visitor to these pagesa chance to comment on proposals. A question: should lack on of consensus for promotion be a reason to fail? Tompw (talk)

Well "consensus" usually means at least three good-standing editors without any concerns present. There really isn't a need to have unnecessary instructions. Yes, lack of consensus may lead to failure of the nomination — when the issues don't get fixed for a substantial amount of time, that is. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Who can promote?

I think we should tidy this up. Someone has created a new account today, explicitly stated that they are a buddy of one of the FLC authors on their userpage, and promoted that FLC despite it being 3-2 excluding obvious socks, having 50% redlinks and not sourced properly. I think we should knuckle down on a more serious criteria on who can promote these things. I had to rollback that bogus FLC passing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking back, the only supports on that FL are socks and meats <100 edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, previously, is anybody allowed to promote a FL? That's interesting… I never knew that! :-) I suppose it could be by # of edits (100, 500, etc.) and/or by length of time been here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say "editors in good standing", or even admins only; we could adopt something like the non-admin thing at WP:DELPRO, regarding "editors in good standing can close obvious one-way-or-the-other ones after x days (the full allotment)", and "only admins can make tight calls". Daniel.Bryant 06:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that only admins can promote on the grounds that adminship is not suppose to be a big deal and that there are plenty of trustworthy editors without admin status. I do, however, agree that some kind of "good standing" requirement is needed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

FL just isn't getting enough reviewers for us to start formally restricting who can do what. And anyway, if someone stepped out of line, what would you do that you wouldn't do just now? I'm not aware of any regulars who are admins. The only recent examples of mis-promotion (two cases) were done by editors unfamiliar with the rules and naturally keen to promote their own (or a friend's) work. We need to correct any impression that it is a vote or that an oppose can be ignored lightly. Perhaps we should move the "To archive a nomination" section to a sub-page and expand it. It would then have room for some guidance. There may be some merit in having a list of people who are willing to participate in promotion/fail part of the process – so that editors have a list of people they can as for guidance. Colin°^Talk 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go and appoint a small group of people, or something, if possible, not for any malicious purposes, but because Featured Content should be high quality, and to maintain high quality, we should have consistency amongst the judgment of what to promote or reject. The thing with AfD for instance, is that there is actually quite a lot of variation in the non trivial debates. It's only about two entries per week, and it isn't going to kill anybody if their FLC waits another day or two for the official rites. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been ignoring WP:FLC for a while, and rune.welsh seems to be away too. I think that, until about December, we were the ones who actually processed promotions (and - not that this is very relevant - we both happen to be admins, as are various other FLC participants). However, I don't think we need to formally appoint a group of people who are "authorised" to promote - many hands, light work, etc. What is important is that the FLC participants and the persons undertaking the promotion have common, widely-understood and consistent standards for promotion. We need to be clear what the criteria for promoting are - in particular, we need to make sure that lists are not promoted where there are unresolved objections. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

People who have promoted/failed lists in 2007: ALoan (3 lists), myself (29), Colin (1), Blnguyen (7), User:The Bread (2), Rune.welsh (5) Michaelas10 (1) ... (a total of 48 - either I've missed someone, miscounted or three got done without the summary saying anything). Ummm... not sure if this is a good state of affairs or not. I don't think one person should be doing two thirds of all promotions, because it doesn't look good. *is now somewhat embaressed*. Tompw (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, well done, and thanks :) That is slightly more diverse than I had expected, actually - and I only just did my three yesterday*! I think Rune.welsh did most last year, but he has gone missing. As I said, I will try to look in more often. It is not such a problem for one person to do most of them - one advantage is that a single closer will probably be reasonably consistent with themselves. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

* and a fourth today. I think this month's failed counter was out by two, if that helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use images

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images about the permitted level of usage of Fair Use images in Featured Lists. Your input would be welcomed. 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The debate continues. At least one FL List of South Park episodes has had its images removed. —Moondyne 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Closure boxes

In order to allow closing editors to explain their actions in a more eloquent manner than the edit summary allows, I'd like to propose that closed nominations are "boxed up", in the same way that Featured Articles nominations are. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log for examples). This is probably more important in the case of failed nominations, especially when the closing editor has to make a potentially controversial descisions. For an example, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Wiltshire. It uses User:Tompw/sandbox12, with a single (unnamed) parameter for the closing editor's comments.

What do people think? Tompw (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In view of the lack of objections, I shall go ahead with this. It will be easy enough to remove if people dislike it. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Tom, meant to comment earlier and forgot about it. I find your "10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose" comments in the edit summary to be useful. They give an idea of the number of comments and any controversy. However, if that is all you say on the closing comments, we're going to get people thinking it is a vote. The FA log doesn't actually say anything other than that it was promoted (or not). AfD closures tend to include some justification and suggestions. Colin°^Talk 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A crisis in quality

We all like the Simpsons and watching the NBA and NFL. That stuff's fun, and it's cool the way people have listed some important stuff about them. 2003 NBA Draft was an important one, seeing LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony rise. Now I've been trying to pull together a List of the writings of William Monahan but some seem to think it's not worthy of a list. It's a depthy subject about a great raw talent who was well known in New York. Anyways, the problem is a bunch of kids at AfD want to delete the list before it's even completed. Frankly, I find it frightening. If you do too please vote to Keep the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan.-BillDeanCarter 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Is there a procedure for withdrawn noms? A list I generated from a script was nominated, and I've persuaded the nominator that it is a bad idea and should be withdrawn, but I don't see a procedure for this. Do we just lump them in with failed noms? Yomangani^talk 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT rewrite

A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

This article has been on FLC for over a month now, thanks entirely to Shudda's opposition and refusal to accept the notability of inducters; this in comparison to eight (8) support votes. Clearly something has to be done to wrap this up, and I don't think the appropriate thing to do is close it because of one minority opposition vote, but it also doesn't seem right to promote it with any outstanding opposes. Thoughts? --MarcK 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, if it's just one opposition who won't buckle then we should promote it, especially if it's 8-1. Kinda obvious promotion to me actually. Wizardman 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another list question

(crossposting from WP:VPA)

There is somewhat of a discussion on FLC about this, and I wanted to ask here. What kind of picture style to folks like in lists of people? There's three different kinds:

1. No pictures at all. (List of Governors of Georgia)
2. Pictures along the side of notable or picture-available people. (List of Governors of Alabama, List of Governors of Kentucky)
3. Pictures for every entry. (List of Governors of Louisiana, List of Governors of California).

Personally, I greatly prefer option #2; I feel that having pictures in the table bloats it horribly. Also, there's the situation, especially on Alabama, where over half the people don't have good free images available; that's why, for example, I don't have a picture of George Wallace there. When I had the pictures in the table itself, it was full of "placeholder" images, which didn't add any value to the table whatsoever. I can see an exception for national office holders, since 1) it tends to be easier to get pictures of those, and 2) they're far more recognizable than governors or lesser offices. But I wanted to see where other folks stood on this. (and FYI, the Georgia article only has no pictures because they haven't been added yet, but I wanted to portray that option as well) --Golbez 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer option 3. For my money, a complete list (especially WP's best) has a full complement of corresponding images. --maclean 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Too many placeholders can look ugly. If you can find an image for each one, and the list is relatively small, then a picture for every entry can look good. But for some long lists, it makes the page take ages to load and may distract from the purpose, which is to tabulate the information and offer links to the articles. Such long picture-lists would be better off as galleries over on Commons, which could be linked to from the list. Colin°^Talk 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured List Review?

Featured Articles have a Featured Article Review; do we have something similar for Lists? Or does Featured List Removal kind of deal with that? I ask because I don't think List of Governors of Delaware presently stands up as a featured list (it was promoted over a year ago), but I don't necessarily want to remove it; I want to see if others agree, and if so, I'll spruce it up. But if no one else agrees, who am I to tamper with a featured list? --Golbez 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:FLRC is the same as WP:FAR. There is definitely a lot of trivial information in that Delaware list (i.e. Occupation, county). I don't think it's necessary to list it in the WP:FLRC, though. If you know a way to improve it, go ahead.--Crzycheetah 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

People "tamper with" featured material all the time. There's no extra protection for featured stuff over non-featured other than a degree of respect. So be bold. If you plan radical changes, post a message on the list's talk page first, and consider asking any key editors directly. It is better for the list to be spruced up than to go through a review, unless you feel the list is seriously broken. Colin°^Talk 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)