Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Discogs

Was there a WP running a project or something? The last 6 FLCs are all discogs and are all in pretty rapid succession. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. Although the pesky WikiCup continues to drive a lot of specific content... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Review process should focus more on lists than on prose

I have some doubts on the FL process... Specifically: in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners/archive1, a list which I really would like to see featured, a large part of the list (the teams of the winner) is unverifiable. Because this is one of the requirements for all wikipedia content, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I finally opposed, after I couldn't find the sources myself. Other reviewers, who apparently review many more articles, gave comments on the prose, or layout details on the list. But none of them think the list failing WP:VER is a reason to oppose, or at least they either support or show their comments have been resolved. It looks like I am going to be the only one to oppose, and that the list will be promoted. I can live with that. But it gives me doubts on the quality of other featured lists. It feels like most attention in the review is given to the prose that introduces the list, and the list itself is overlooked, which is strange for a featured list. I want to make clear that I am not blaming the nominator for anything, nor the volunteers who did the reviews. I just think that the FLC process should focus more on the lists, because they are (or should be) the core of the article. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 04:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As director, I can assure you that as long as there are actionable concerns, the number of supports will not override your oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As director and reviewer, I can assure that I give equal consideration to the prose and the list. They are of equal importance and both need correct and accurate references. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to your views, Edge, but what's the alternative? When I review a FLC, it's almost always to examine just the accessibility aspects and I hope I make it clear that my support is based on that alone. Must I also check citations, image licensing, dead links, etc. before I write my support? I'd never find the time to do a review to the standard that I'd like if I had to cover all aspects. I think that our directors understand that and would not promote a list that had an oppose on a matter so vital as sourcing, and I certainly would not expect my support, based on a single aspect of the criteria, to outweigh that. --RexxS (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2009, during the promotion of List of Tour de France general classification winners, reviewer Jpeeling did the kind of review I was expecting here, and I thought the standards had lowered since, but this may just be a simple miscommunication... When I see a support, I assume it means "I reviewed this article, and it now agrees to all criteria, so I think it should be promoted". Is it more accurate to read it like "I reviewed part of the article or part of the criteria, and could not find significant failures, so based on that I see no reason not to promote it"? Anyway, the above replies have helped me to appreciate the FL process again.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Verifiability checks were also lacking frequently at FAC until recently. I believe this is primarily a function of time; there just isn't enough of it for one reviewer to check every element of a page against the standards. It sounds like an excuse, but it's something that I often struggle with, and I can't be the only one. That's not even taking into account the issues like photo reviews that really need experts in order to be done correctly. Truth be told, we need more reviewers willing to offer detailed verifiability reviews like you've done here. Of course, the rub is that every other content review process also needs more reviewers, so we're not alone. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Matthewedwards

hello,

I have doubts about User:Matthewedwards opposes. He opposes with the reason that the abbreviations of countries on discographies are false. So why nobody has mentioned it in the previous nominations? Is there any guideline that explicitly say, that this is forbidden? Why he hasn't discussed it in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies for example, to reach consensus? Why didn't he use the iso-standard in Tokio Hotel discography, Girls Aloud discography, Sigur Rós discography and Rihanna discography, which he nominated?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into this, but I have a couple of things to say. Matthew is a long-term contributor to FLC and as such, I have enormous faith in his reviewing and editing skills. I would urge you to assume good faith in his recent opinions here. What is certainly true is that just because something hasn't been pointed out in the past, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out now or in the future. That's the nature of how we slowly improve around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ooh, goody. A thread all about me. ;) I have complete faith in the closing directors to place the right amount of value in my comments. If they decide to overlook them given that others have supported, that's fine, but I've said my piece and raised the issue. I'm pretty sure that I did use ISO codes in those four discogs, even if they don't now. If I didn't at the time of nomination, then I will have to check the history. I'm almost positive I have changed them at least once because I've had discussions about it more than once. "SPA", "SWI" and "GER" have no meaning in common English usage. "GER" is used by the Olympics and FIFA, and a couple of other sports who borrow the Olympics codes, but this isn't a sport-related list. "SUI" is the closest thing to SWI for Switzerland, and "SPA" is just complete rubbish. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I haven't mentioned it at WT:DISCOG or WT:WikiProject Discographies/style because their style guide is just a proposal, and the talk page has been dead for a month. Nothing on the style page ever gets updated, the members can't decide whether it's ready to be made official or not, and all changes for improvements of discogs get discussed here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if a project style guide actually advocates the use of incorrect or non-standard terms and phrases, FLC should be bold enough to tell them they should address the issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I respect your oppose in some way, but it would be better if you would put a discussion about this somewhere before your opposes, let's say right here (if you think WT:DISCOGS is not active)?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussions for the reasoning behind opposes is why there are FLC subpages to begin with. — KV5 • Talk • 22:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

List eligibility question

Originally I wasn't going to nominate it, but after seeing Appy Awards- is Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story long enough for FL? It's three years, which I felt was too short, but it's also 16 items if you look at it that way as Appy Awards does, which would be enough. --PresN 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, this is me speaking "off-the-director" as it were. The Appy list has ten award categories and 40 nominees. But the nominees are dealt with on a category-by-category basis rather than being listed individually as they are in the Hugo list. If you formatted the Hugo list per the Appy list, it'd be 3 entries with some runners up. I'm not sure. I was tempted to withdraw Appys because right now I'm not at all interested in drama and other agendas, but now I guess I'll need to let it run and see how we go! In any case, my opinion here is simply my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

FL on main page

What is the status of having FLs on the main page? bamse (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, we're waiting for Adam to do the coding. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, was just wondering since I hadn't heard about it in a while. What's a good page to watchlist for any news? Will there be an announcement on this page when all is done? bamse (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd expect this page, as it is the most used. The last news was here (archived as Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 15#TFL: Decision needed!). --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I was also wondering on the latest regarding TFL. Perhaps updates could be provided on the TFL talk page? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Adam today announced his retirement from the project due to a TFL-unrelated wikipedia issue. Do we have anyone else? StrPby (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a working solution from 11 March at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 15#FL on Main Page - moving forward. Do you want to adopt that? If so, we could take Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview as our design suggestion to RfC once the layout, etc. was agreed here. --RexxS (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been out of the loop for a while, so I'm not entirely up to speed. As I can gather, Adam has gone, Sven is no longer an FS director, and X! (the ideal person to take over from Adam) hasn't edited in weeks. There is only one active FS director left. That throws up a few questions. Do sounds want to press ahead with the main page at this point in time? If yes, great. If no, do we press ahead, on the grounds that sounds won't be changing the look of the page when they're ready? And either way, who is going to code? —WFC— 23:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I say press on and perhaps take over that which FS has left behind if they're not showing any clear leadership structure or perhaps an inability to cope with the responsibility of going to mainpage. Perhaps we suggest a Sat/Sun slot for two lists, using the coding that RexxS has mentioned above. Otherwise all that good work will have gone to waste... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Rather than hang around any longer, I'm prepared to code the TFL proposals. Details are at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list#Testing a solution and it's ready to go, as soon as we agree it. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

linking countries in tables

Just a quick question, are we allowed to link countries in a table as at Vuelta FLC, User:Arsenikk is adamant that it is against MOS. However WP:OVERLINK states that 'where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links.' Now it does also state that you should avoid linking countries, but as far as I'm aware it has been common practice to link countries in tables for as long as I can remember, so I'd like to know which is right link or no link? NapHit (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it as it's not just a question of "overlink" but it's a question of sortable tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Short answer: "no link". -- Long answer: You're mixing up two different issues here. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) states: "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item." WP:OVERLINK WP:REPEATLINK Goodraise 00:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) only deals with the question of when to make exceptions from that particular rule. It answers the question "Link only once or always?" The question Arsenikk is raising is more basic. They ask "Should countries be linked at all?" And quite correctly, they point out that the MOS advises against it: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations". So from the MOS's position, the answer to your question is clearly "no link". But of course, the MOS can be wrong, outdated, out of sync with what's actually going on... You name it. That there's lots of featured lists linking country names would seem to indicate that that is the case, but I suspect that few of these lists link them the same way as it is done here. Here, Spain is linked to Spain. That is a textbook example of a low-value link. OVERLINK exists, because we don't want this kind of link to obstruct the view and keep the reader from finding the high-value links. What I usually see in featured lists is links like this: England. That's the kind of link you won't get an argument about. Goodraise 20:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Goodraise summarises the issues well, except for the last sentence where you may get an argument from me. That's because it's often an "Easter Egg" link, i.e. a page that is not what one would expect when clicking the text. The legitimacy of such links depends strongly on context and the restrictions of space in a table, but generally I'd advise against them unless their format is clarified in a footnote or legend. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh no! re: Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performanc

Ah! I think I may have forgotten to add Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performance/archive1 to the FLC page. I was wondering why I was not receiving any responses. Is it possible that this nomination page link could be added to the top of the FLC list? Please let me know how best to proceed (or feel free to correct directly). Sorry for the confusion. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I took care of it; transcluded at the top and added a note explaining the delay. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Much thanks. Sorry again! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that, KV5. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Fo sho. — KV5 • Talk • 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this is so embarrassing, but I forgot to transclude a nomination page again. Feel free to add a note to the Native American Music Award list. There are several Grammy lists nominated currently, though only one by me and it has received support votes already. Sorry for my forgetfulness! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

If another editor recently did a copyedit on a FLC, would they also be allowed to share their opinion of the list afterwards (i.e. to support or oppose it?) Crystal Clear x3 03:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course they would be allowed to participate in the FLC, but they should make their involvement with the article clear. Goodraise 04:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 05:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags RfC

A centralised RfC on the circumstances under which flags should and shouldn't be used in lists has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/RFC on the use of flagicons in lists. —WFC— 16:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

time left on FLC

Hello. How much more time do I have (or are willing to give me) for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Benet Academy alumni/archive1? I'm still canvassing for commenters at the moment. Edge3 (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not my field of expertise, but I will review it. bamse (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Done. bamse (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! Edge3 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome. Thanks for your patience. I know the feeling of canvassing for FLC reviewers, so was happy to help out. bamse (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a must-read for us "list people", but some might want to know this is going on. Goodraise 15:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England

I've made a mess of this nomination because the title has been changed from "South East" to Southeast" and seems to have acquired two archive numbers. Can someone with the necessary skills please help me out? Thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting here for informational purposes only; comments on Today's Featured List should be directed to either Talk:Main page or WT:TFL.

For those who might not be aware, Edoktor has finished setting up the infrastructure for Today's Featured List, and has asked for formal approval to activate the code at Talk:Main page. As such, it's not a question of whether we will ever see lists on the main page, but which Monday in June they will start going up. I'd encourage anyone interested in getting involved to check out at WP:TFL and the subpages, and give any thoughts at WT:TFL. Regards, —WFC— 21:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The submissions page is now officially live. A few of us have already added lists, and started reviewing others. Two of the lists were already on TRMs list, but I guess letting other people have a look does no harm. I invite all FLC regulars to submit new ones, and to review the ones that are already there. There won't be any "promotions" for a few days, and the earliest that any of these lists could possibly go on the main page is July 4, but I see no reason not to get cracking. The bigger a surplus we build up, the sooner we can start thinking about a more regular place on the main page. —WFC— 20:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The final proposal to put lists onto the main page is now underway. —WFC— 11:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it freaking well happened. With only two hours to go, we had a list on the mainpage for 22 hours without Wikipedia exploding. Well done team. More to come, let's keep the ball rolling. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to every one of you. Without our superb writers, reviewers, coders, and organizers (and of course my excellent co-directors Giants and TRM), none of this would have been possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists of mathematics topics

I've been drawn towards this Former Featured List. For want of a better expression, it is the daddy of all possible mathematics lists; any conceivable maths list should be either directly or indirectly accessible from it. I've been asked what could possibly be done to it if we were aiming to re-feature it. I believe I know the answer, but I don't want to give it without being reasonably sure.

My understanding is as follows. For a list of lists, WP:V does not actually apply to the individual entries, in the same way that you wouldn't add references to a DAB page. What we do require is a sourced lead that introduces the topic, as with any FL. Additionally, each section should have a well sourced introduction to the general topic, outlining what it is, its significance, and applications where relevant. Provided that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is adhered to, using bits of leads of parent articles (algebra, calculus, geometry etc) wouldn't be such a bad way to go, as the content we would expect here would be similar to the content that you would expect for the lead of an FA on algebra.

Does that sound more or less right? —WFC— 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean Lists of mathematics topics, right? Goodraise 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yikes. Corrected. Didn't realise that there was a distinction (and there quite possibly shouldn't be!). —WFC— 22:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to write a direct answer to your question, but the issue is too complex for me right now. It's given me a headache. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow. For now I'll just write down some of the questions I've been asking myself, trying to answer yours. Should List of mathematics topics and Lists of mathematics topics be merged? Would the result of that be an outline? Is List of mathematics topics an outline? Are (or should) outlines (be) considered lists? Do we want lists of lists to become featured? Should we even list lists? Wouldn't it be better to organize all our content (and articles) in a content oriented manner? Goodraise 01:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It would seem I'm not the only one having trouble making up his mind on this matter. I'm reluctant to give advice on how to improve a list, when I'm not convinced I could support its promotion to FL-status once my suggested changes are implemented. Personally, I think pages that are primarily navigational in nature should only, if anywhere, exist in the portal namespace. And I think all pages listing articles rather than the things these articles are about qualify for that category. But maybe that's just me. Goodraise 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All-Star Final Vote

Should All-Star Final Vote be split into articles by decade (2002-09, 2010-present)? If so how would renomination go?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With 47,356 bytes in the most recent revision, I see no need to split this list yet. In fact, if it was split, I'd call 3b violation. As for the renomination, if memory serves right, you'd simply split the page and bring both resulting lists to FLRC. Goodraise 03:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it will be a few years before it is really necessary, but the split would involve an overall article retaining the same title that might be a WP:GA and two lists for now with year ranges (2002-09, 2010-2019) in the title. As we approach having this years content added, I was just wondering whether now is the time. P.S. I am wondering the same thing about the National Recording Registry--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can't think of a precedent right now, but my answer remains the same. Bring all three resulting articles to FLRC. At least the "overall article" would then be demoted for failing 3b ("it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists"). As for National Recording Registry, I don't think that list is large enough yet either. By the way, did I see a trivia section in there? Nah, I must have imagined that... Goodraise 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I realize it's not featured, but look to Academy Award for Best Picture as an example of a similar (table of 5+ elements every year, there for 70+ years) list. I don't think this will need splitting for a good long time. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I echo what the others have said. If it's featured credits you're looking for, search for high quality recordings of some of the songs at NRR, which will by now be in the public domain, and be selective about the ones you take to FSC. —WFC— 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC on minimum prep-time for main-page blurbs

Dear colleagues, I've started an RfC here to measure support for a proposal that blurbs for the three featured-content sections on the main page be posted for community input at least 24 hours ahead of the deadline for cascade-protection. Your input is welcome. Tony (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

World Series of Poker Bracelets

Recently, there was a controversial overhaul at {{1970s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{1980s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{1990s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, {{2000s WSOP Bracelet Winners}}, and {{2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners}} on content that was consistent with articlespace content in 2005–2011 World Series of Poker results, including 2007 World Series of Poker results and 2008 World Series of Poker results. All the people who are involved in the discussion there are poker fans speculating on what might be confusing to general readers. Since the issue is also of concern in article space and it may even be best for the templates to be consistent with article space, we bring the Template talk:2010s WSOP Bracelet Winners#Should the "total wins" be removed? discussion here for consideration by editors who are not necessarily poker fans. Note in 2007 World Series of Poker results when Tom Schneider won his first bracelet it says (1/1), which meant first of the year and first of his career. Then when he won his second it says (2/2) for second of the year and second of his career. There is debate whether the second number should reflect career totals at the time or whether those numbers should be updated to reflect career totals as they change. In the 2007 article that would mean that the first instance should be changed to (1/2) when his career totals increased. In the 2008 FL, the first example I notices was Jeff Lisandro, who won his first that year and has a (1/1) after his name. Now, he has a total of 5. The controversy is that maybe the 2008 reference should be revised to say (1/5). Alternatively, in the template the decision was made to remove the career totals altogether in lieu of constantly revising them. What does FL think about this. Admittedly, the template may scrap the career total altogether just because templates with a lot of cluttering data are frowned upon, but we want to know if general readers are confused on this convention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the Dallas Observer an acceptable RS for FLs?

Crystal Clear x3 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In my mind the determining factor is whether they are a wikilike publication by the public or are they an editorial publication with professional editors. I am guessing from their about page that they are editorial.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

CCP discography

Hi, I believe that I have done my best to make a good article of CCPs releases, so can you assist with its nomination, please? Thank you. Uzerakount (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

TFL today and tomorrow...

Please come by and let us know what you think about WP:TFL. Discussion being held here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page features

A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics

Hey, I'm trying to get Events at the 1952 Winter Olympics up to FL quality but I'm running into a writer's block. It's minimal right now and I don't want to nominate it as is and look like a fool. That said I'm not sure what else I could add that is not outlined in either the main article or the other lists. Any suggestions or do you think it's ok to nominate as is? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say that this is a genuine fork from the already-featured article at 1952 Winter Olympics. I don't think it's worth pursuing at all I'm afraid. What else can you bring to this article that isn't already comprehensively covered in the main article? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Point taken and I certainly don't want to recreate the wheel. The goal is to create a Featured Topic and I don't want to get hung up there because someone thinks this ought to be a stand alone list. I agree that the information is found elsewhere. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One more source question....

Is the Alternate Film Guide also an RS? Crystal Clear x3 21:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be much easier to answer your question, if you included a link or something. It's difficult to examine a source you can't find. Goodraise 23:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Here: altfg.com Crystal Clear x3 00:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's the site's terms of use [1]. (I'd also like to know if its an RS). Ruby2010 comment! 02:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember me?

I just found out that FLC now has a presence on the main page. In the past, I opposed a proposal, but I hope you guys can make this work. It's been a while since I've visited any FLC pages, and I would like to become involved again in the process, I just don't know when. Basically, I just wanted to congratulate Rambling Man, DaBomb and Giants2008 for taking the process and running with it, and I'm happy to see things are going well. -- Scorpion0422 01:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you're still around and editing. So far, TFL has run smoothly, and reception has been largely positive. I hope to see you back at FLC soon. As an ex-director, you deserve recognition as well for keeping FLC going for years and establishing the foundation that allowed us to reach the point we are at now. Dabomb87 (talk)
Yes, it would be wonderful if you could return to reviewing in the future. You're one of those who helped FLC grow to this point, and it would be great to see you return. Thanks for your support, and rest assured that we will continue to do the best jobs that we can here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

List of people from Montana

I want to turn this into a FL. I know it needs tons of work, but that's okay. I could not find any similar list that is a FL, such as "List of people from (pick a US state)". What FL would be a good one for me to model this on? PumpkinSky talk 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the "List of [fraternity or sorority] people", but you'll want to be sure to take the updated ACCESS standards and FL criteria into accounts; most of those lists are older FLs. — KV5 • Talk • 16:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe something like List of Athabasca University people. Jujutacular talk 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Or List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni is up to a higher standard / more recent. Jujutacular talk 16:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I've also started on List of stutterers. I'm doing it first. If someone would look over it and see if I'm missing anything, I'd appreciate it. I just started so better to catch things now than later. PumpkinSky talk 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: proposals to reform main-page DYK

There's an RfC just launched that proposes to introduce a framework for the proper reviewing of DYKs, given wide concerns about quality and policy compliance; and to provide for the archiving of nominations that don't meet policy and DYK requirements seven days after their first review comment.

But things are moving fast: now there's a new proposal by User:Dr. Blofeld to change the scope of DYKs to high-quality articles, a move that has Jimbo's support. I've suggested that FLs be included, since I believe FLs deserve a bit more main-page recognition, and more importantly, they're a mine of hookable statements (the interesting, the catchy, the punchy, the unusual). Forcing hook statements out of newbie articles has been a major struggle with the current DYK model, in my view.

So you may want to observe these developments. Tony (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is going to appear cynical, but I don't see how this is anything more than another attempt to force us out of our weekly TFL spot. There's no way I could support this. StrPby (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the TFL spot. While I haven't commented on them, the proposals have been about reforming the the DYK spot's content. The newest proposal would change DYK to running hooks from newly promoted GA instead of newly created/expanded article. Tony seems to be suggesting that FLs be included with the GAs (since there's no "Good List" process) which would allow FLs to appear on the main page twice (once as a DYK, once as a TFL) as lists could now, but would have an audit of the quality of the list just as the GAN review would be an audit of the quality of an article before it's DYK-able. Imzadi 1979 → 02:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but the difference is that our lists are audited by the list community, not by a single reviewer whose just doing his best to get his own DYK listed. Given that FLs have only featured on main page now for a couple of months (but done very well), I don't want to see a process overhaul at this early stage. Of course, that's my opinion, but WP:TFL is working just fine, we got nearly as many page views as WP:TFA a week or so back. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:TFL - more reviews needed!

Hello good folks. While we still have WP:TFL intact (and well done once again to all involved in keeping it going), we're now done to just a few lists approved for the main page. If you get a moment, could you have a look at the submissions page where lists should be reviewed against the current criteria and indications of support for main page inclusion should be given. Also, if there's any suggestion to tie a list to a particular date, so much the better. Once enough support is given, the lists will be moved to the prep area where they will await a final once-over from the directors before being queued up.

Any help, as ever, would be gratefully received! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Giants has made the point elsewhere that while the submissions page being open is a great idea, we're in danger of spreading ourselves too thin. To that end, I've compiled a shortlist of some of the submissions I believe are close to being main page ready, on the new TFL noticeboard (also visible here). They are by no means the best six submissions, just the first six I remembered as being close to ready, excluding those I have an involvement with. I think if we focus our reviewing efforts on those for now, we will be able to get the other high quality ones through the system reasonably quickly. —WFC— TFL notices 22:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
this is just to get your attention.  ;)

I have a hair up my butt. I know this sounds crazy, given the state it's in, but I'm thinking of doing some major work and getting Amanar up to a TFL. Major tasks:

  • An awesome diagram showing the vault ([NYT and LAT had very insightful ones) and then discussion of the biomechanics.
  • A Wikitable to show the females that have done the vault.
  • Bunch of research to nail references and first competed and all that (will be hard, but IG should have a lot of it. Would have to go hard copy, I think, for old issues.
  • Little more on the story of how it was first developed and all (may need some Romanian translation help, for sources there, but can reach cross Wiki or go to Romanian bloggers or the like)

It will definitely not be an easy list. But I would be kind of proud of just doing something tricky.

P.s. And it's not a soccer team or a TV show episode list.

TCO (reviews needed) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, widely spaced eyes, high level of facial symmetry. Likely to have low rate of genetic mutations. Tony (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Auditing for close paraphrasing and plagiarism

A lively discussion is occurring at DYK talk on the challenges of auditing for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This involves all quality assurance processes at WP. Tony (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One FLC at a time? Wow! Time for a change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This came up on a list I was going to review, the UK Christmas album FLC, and the submitter, User:A Thousand Doors , was told you can only have one FLC at a time. This was certainly news and a shock to me too! I'd think people would want as many FLs as possible and to me this rule seems so self-defeating. Making productive users wait is not the way to go. TRM told him to remove it or he would, I asked a few more questions, and then just a few minutes later TRM deleted the FLC (I can't find my edits to it anymore). I'm like wow! What is the big deal here? I didn't get any answers to my last questions. TRM seemed to think a flood of more noms would come in. I doubt it. If they did, so what? People can't produce them that fast. How long has this rule been in effect? Why can't we get rid of the rule and see what really happens? A few more might come in but I doubt that many; and it may even encourage more FLCs, which I'd think we'd want. My guess is the number of noms would barely change. PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is normally assumed that the process of candidature for featured content may consume quite a bit of time for the nominator. If multiple nominations were allowed, then the nominator may not be able to devote the time needed to each FLC to meet the comments raised by reviewers in a timely fashion. As with most processes on Wikipedia, it is difficult to find good reviewers, so I suggest that keeping the our reviewers engaged must take precedence over a desire by nominators to have more than one FLC at a time. For what it's worth, FAC imposes similar restrictions, for what I assume are similar reasons. If you want to do reviews for FLC, that would be greatly appreciated, but the backlog is large enough to persuade me that we are not suffering from a dearth of nominations. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just can't accept that as a valid argument, and I have been doing reviewing, finished one about 8 minutes ago in fact. If the argument you make truly held water, you'd limit the number of submissions from all submitters, but you don't. I think a problem is being created here when there is no real problem. Let's take the muzzle off and see what happens; not much I expect. PumpkinSky talk 23:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
We do limit the number of submissions for everyone. But we sometimes let people submit another nom if the one they submitted had no outstanding issue and sufficient support.—Chris!c/t 00:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I know that. Now tell me what would be so bad about taking the muzzle off for a trial period. PumpkinSky talk 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It used to be, and we were flooded with a high number of nominations that reviewers couldn't keep up with. Considering that we don't have many reviewers anyway, it's only fair to everyone to keep the process limited. I for one can't see changing it. — KV5 • Talk • 00:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
How long ago was that? I still think a one month trial would be good. How often does someone try to more than one at FLC?PumpkinSky talk 00:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
All the time, when the first one is on the way to passing. An FLC will often pass in a month, and within two weeks there is usually enough support to get away with putting a second one up. That's 24 lists a year if things are running smoothly. And if they're not running smoothly, it's only right that limited reviews are divided fairly between a larger number of nominators. —WFC— TFL notices 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Please someone answer the question about the last time the muzzle was taken off, and I mean totally. I vehemently disagree with this rule. PumpkinSky talk 00:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, PumpkinSky, you can "vehemently disagree" with a rule over and over again, but in all fairness to all nominators and reviewers, I doubt there's going to be a change. — KV5 • Talk • 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably not but there's nothing wrong with a trial and people are just blowing that off and the remainging question. PumpkinSky talk 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, since you aren't gaining any support for a trial, please consider the idea contemplated and rejected. No, I don't know when the rule was specifically enacted, but the analogous change to FAC was made last year, IIRC. Imzadi 1979 → 00:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If you insist, I guess you could start a poll on the trial. But I doubt that people will support it.—Chris!c/t 01:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If it ain't broke... I see you've only been on Wikipedia barely a month, PumpkinSky. I'd suggest perhaps getting a bit more involved with processes before trying to change them? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Even someone here on day one is entitled to voice their views. Sometimes the newbies have the best ideas because they're not jaded by institutional blindness. Or should I just go make a graphic that shows a newbie with a muzzle on? PumpkinSky talk 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
PumpkinSky, there's nothing wrong with ideas, but there's a proper way to go about expressing them, rather than calling users "jaded" and "blind". — KV5 • Talk • 01:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It was a general statement, not directed at anyone in particular. All institutions/organizations have institutional blindness and systemic bias, wiki is in no way exempt.PumpkinSky talk 01:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, you would be wise to take the advice of some of the users above. Like Chris said, if you want to start a poll in this section, go ahead, but you can see from the above that the proposal already has a lot of opposition. — KV5 • Talk • 01:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No poll, I'll just go back to my list. PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
PumpkinSky, the best way to get this rule removed would be to become a highly active and effective reviewer, and recruit 5 more while you're at it. The users here telling you it would be a bad idea to remove the rule are saying so because they know how badly reviews are needed. They see the workload that our FLC directors are constantly having to deal with. If this were noticeably reduced, I think you would get a much more positive reaction here. Jujutacular talk 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I did not delete the FLC, I did say it should be removed and that I would remove it if not. Another director correctly deleted it. We have barely sufficient reviewers for the current set of FLCs, flooding the list with more is not going to help. All I can say to the "shocked" original editor of this thread is to be aware of the clear instructions given at WP:FLC. It's designed to stop people nominating several of the same type of list (to prevent common errors in multiple nominations), it's designed to keep nominators focussed on a single FLC (so we don't have dozens lingering while nominators catch up), it's designed to keep the process as efficient and effective as possible with massively limited resources. It's that simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was willing to let this go, but since people insist on continuing...I am still totally unconvinced there'd be a "flood" of additional noms. Very few people can produce them that fast. I want to see proof that'd actually happen. And what of people who can produce quality lists with few problems that fast? They're basically getting stonewalled. And for the record, I've reviewed several lists already. People need to stop insinuating I haven't, which isn't exactly going to encourage me to review more lists. PumpkinSky talk 19:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There's no tangible benefit to allowing people to nominate multiple lists at once. There is tangible benefit to making them focus on one before they nominate another. If you can persuade me otherwise, I'm interested, otherwise, it's not broken and it doesn't need "fixing". No-one is "stonewalled", all we ask is our nominators act with patience and diligence. Thanks for reviewing some lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
So someone makes lists of widgets; they've got some to FL and know the routine; their noms are good and only need minor tweaks. They FLC the next one. Two weeks later it has one review and it's fixed but in the meantime he has one ready for FLC. He can't nom it because because of this rule? He has to sit around for 2-4 more weeks til the other one gets promoted? I simply think that's wrong and you are not going to convince me otherwise. We'll just have to agree to disagree.PumpkinSky talk 20:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
No rush. No further comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I was already willing to let the go before. Let's move on, nothing further to be gained here at the moment. PumpkinSky talk 20:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviews

Any thoughts on this? bamse (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw

Can Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/MTV Movie Award for Best Fight/archive1 please be closed, as I am withdrawing the nom? —Andrewstalk 00:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed down. Courcelles 00:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. —Andrewstalk 00:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Award infobox overkill

Just reviewing List of accolades received by True Grit (2010 film) one last time and it suddenly struck me how repetitive the words in the infobox are. Let's see:

  • The infobox heading: List of awards won by True Grit.
  • The caption: "... received numerous nominations ..."
  • The collpased heading: "Awards & (N)/(n)ominations"
  • The penultimate heading: "Total number of wins and nominations"

Not to mention that the article is referred to as "List of accolades...." Now, I'm only picking this specific list because I've just revisited it; however, this is endemic throughout the awards lists, not to mention the fact (in my mind) all such award lists should be {{dynamic list}}-tagged as who's to say every single award/nomination is listed? Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this isn't exactly the response you were after, but while you mention it I think {{dynamic list}} needs a bit of rewording. —WFC— TFL notices 13:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No, fair enough, but one step at a time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw my nomination

Can someone withdraw my nomination of List of people from Montana (gridiron football)? The main list I've been working on (List of people from Montana) went over 200K and 290+ refs, so I have split off the whole athlete section to List of people from Montana (athletes) and merged the full football list into it. I left a redirect from the football list to the athletes list. I'll also be splitting off the entertainers section. All around, I think this will be better. Thanks and sorry for the trouble. PumpkinSky talk 02:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male

FYI: I requested a revisit a while back. I am not sure how to address the sorting concern, nor does the reviewer. I am not sure there is a solution, but I just wanted to point one the reason for the delay. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up KV5. Was by no means trying to call you out for anything; was just letting reviewers know of the status. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I understand. I had actually forgotten, so the stimulus was appreciated. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 19:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness and verifibility

A discussion on whether List of national anthems currently meets FL criteria, and if not, how best to go about ensuring that it does, is being held here. Regards, —WFC— 21:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of Japanese books FLC

Just to make sure, and not to have it fail, what is the status of this FLC? From my side, all comments/questions/suggestions have been answered. Is there anything more I can do about the list, or should I just wait a little more? bamse (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The status is that the FLC needs more reviews. Us directors can't promote anything if no support exists. You may need to ask for reviews, in a neutrally worded way of course. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Will ask reviewers. You and "The Rambling Man" can't vote, correct? bamse (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I won't speak for TRM, but it usually acts as a disqualifier for me closing FLCs. One of the first closures I made as a director resulted in three lists I supported being promoted; though there were circumstances leading me to do that, I thought it was a bad precedent to set and have tried to avoid similar closures since then. With that in mind, I don't support too often. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please spare a moment and review one of the lists sitting at the submissions page. These are current featured lists so it's really a sanity check to see if they still meet the criteria so they can be considered for main page inclusion! We worked so hard to get FLs onto the main page, it would be a shame if we couldn't keep up the effort and get some lists lined up! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but how does it work? Is it like a second FLC? Basically what I was wondering is whether I should review a submission that has already been approved by another reviewer or whether I should pick a submission without any reviews? Do submissions need several reviews? bamse (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Basically it's a sanity check to ensure any list submitted still meets the current standards required by the criteria. If you look at some of the reviews, you'll see the common issues being picked up, mainly MOS issues, some "This is a list of..." issues, accessibility etc. All lists should be reviewed by at least one editor, when happy they can support its inclusion in the prep area. One of the directors will then (once happy with it themselves) move the submission to the queue awaiting inclusion on the main page. Review any list you like bamse, any help you can provide is gratefully received. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, will have a look now. bamse (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Did three reviews. Will take a break now. bamse (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Fourth done. Just one more question, should I inform the main author/FLC nominator/TFL nominator of it, or can I expect them to watch this page? bamse (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to let them know. Thanks for your help so far bamse! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Done. bamse (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
My time over the couple of last weeks has been restricted to Watford maintenance, attempting to keep an eye on the TFLs I'm already involved with, and being forced to edit war for my right to post a relevant comment on a talk page, but I'll try and step up with some more reviews this weekend. —WFC— 04:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

All good, I'm back home now so I may be able to get some time to do some myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Twenty-five Year Award failure Questions

I was the main editor of Twenty-five Year Award (Archive Here ) and was very surprised at the suddenness of its closure. I have been checking about every day for now 2 months for more problems to brought up regarding the article which I can address but none never came up. It had one editors support and I had resolved all problems from three other editors. I understand that two of those editors were FLC directors and they try not to support so that they can close nominations, but I just do not see what I could have done differently. The Rules state that "the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating," but since Twenty-Five Year Award was closed due to "Stale nomination" and not because of any issues with the article, how long must I wait to re-nominate? Also, I if do renominate is it likely that the review will go stale again? Was my article just not interesting enough for people to want to review? I am very confused by all of this.--Found5dollar (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There simply wasn't sufficient community support for it to be promoted. You are welcome to renominate it in a few days, and I would encourage you to notify relevant Wikiprojects that the nomination is active, clearly don't canvass but just telling everyone you have an FLC running is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I suspect that the problem was not with the quality of the list nominated, but with the relatively small number of active reviewers, particularly at this time of year. I hope I'm not out of line suggesting this, but one thing you could do would be to review other lists regularly and encourage others to do so as well. There's no 'quid pro quo' system as DYK tried, so it wouldn't guarantee anything, but I (for one) would feel a 'moral obligation' to try to review nominations from editors whom I knew reviewed regularly. I suspect that many of the regular reviewers might feel the same. Good luck on your re-nomination and feel free to 'ping' me for a review – I'll do my best to oblige. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Stale or "insufficient community support". Same thing. Both mean "failed due to not enough reviews, not because of article quality". Let's call it what it is. Sadly, I'm not sure I see a viable solution to the problem until there are more reviewers. PumpkinSky talk 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to get into FLC reviewing. I got one through a few months ago (and another one is now nominated), and it really sucks having to wait a week or longer for any input, and a month or more before passing or failing. Hopefully I'll be able to help out with those issues. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, anyone who is generous enough to spend time reviewing the FLCs is more than welcome! I try to get round to reviewing every single list, sometimes I have my own backlog to deal with though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable or not?

hello everyone,

I want to re-nominate List of channels on Zattoo, which first nomination failed because of unreliable sources, for example. I subsequently posted a comment here, but the answers weren't really helpful. WP:SPS say that self-published sources, such as blogs, aren't reliable. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", so I think it could pass, as the author is a computer engineer. I am not sure about the other source, so that's the reason I ask for help. Maybe you can help me. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FLRC discussion

Please visit the FLRC talk page to comment on a proposal to limit FLRC nominations to one at a time. Thanks all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Debate at current FL

I've found myself become involved in a debate at Talk:List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Champions and the article's edit summaries over whether a new table without a source should be allowed to remain on the page. Any input from any of the regulars here is welcome, to help reach a consensus on this issue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

responded there. PumpkinSky talk 15:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice

  • It has been suggested by a project coordinator that I should ask for advice here in relation to a issue with a list which has not yet been submitted as FLC, apologies if it's not thought appropriate.
  • A problem has arisen at List of castles in England, not with an edit war but with an editor using WP policies and guidelines as a means to attack the page - and me - relentlessly. In particular, he is now using WP:SIZERULE to demand the page be split. Because the guidelines can be read as recommending splitting at 100k, my expectation is that he will never give up whilst the page exceeds that size, without an authoritative ruling that a larger size is acceptable.
  • I am working on ways to reduce the size from its current 256k to 180k or less. I'd be very glad to establish a definitive view as to what an acceptable size would be for this page.
  • I have put out a request for opinions on the article's talk page. Paravane (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, on a simplistic footing, I'd say that FLC is bound by Wikipedia's guidelines and policies just like any other area of the encyclopaedia. Having said that, SIZERULE is a guideline and therefore is not mandated. Is there an elegant way of splitting the list into three or four smaller ones? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the elegant division is between England, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland, as at present. There are not really 3 or 4 obvious regions in England to split into. Splitting the page would lose the ability to browse and search on a single page; make maintenance harder because there are differing views on what the list should include; and lose the role of the introduction, which is designed to stabilise the content and probably could not appear on each new page. Originally the England list was essentially just names. I added pictures and notes, and the page went through B class assessment and peer review with no comment on the size. If pictures, notes and other info are removed again, it could be shrunk below 100k. Perhaps the question I'm really posing is whether - or at what size - WP:SIZERULE should be taken as sufficient grounds to force a split. Alternatively, at what size could I reasonably ask someone to remove the tag? Paravane (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Problem is that SIZERULE is a wiki-wide guideline. It does apply here unfortunately, unless there's a compelling reason for it not to. I have 8Mb/s download and I still struggle to download, edit and re-upload pages that are a couple of hundred KB in size on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
As the List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England has FL status, is 154,200 bytes in size and has no {{Very long}} tag, that at least should be an acceptable size for the List of castles in England, unless there are any other factors in play. Paravane (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you're always going to find exceptions to the "rule" which is why the "rule" is a guideline. Interesting you selected that though because it delineates by an area called "the East of England". Can you not find something analogous for the castles, just out of interest? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the castles list could be split up into the same regions as the Churches Conservation Trust lists. But the latter lists are well-defined, no-one is going to argue about which buildings should be on the lists, whereas that's not true for the castles. Also the distribution of castles is different, there are far more in the north, so splitting into NE and NW would give more even results. There aren't standardised regions to choose. Also there are already some county lists of castles and the intention was for a full set. Splitting into regions is possible, but is it necessary or the most useful approach, if the full England page can be shrunk sufficiently? This is under discussion on the talk page, I am trying to establish what the options are. Paravane (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well don't forget I'm just a single voice and consensus should rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:SIZERULE is part of WP:SIZE, which is no content guideline. It once was and some of its wording still suggests to the uninformed reader that it still is a content guideline when in fact it's an editing guideline. As such it does not apply to articles (or their contents), but to how articles should be edited. SIZERULE provides guidance on how to make split decision, nothing more. Its figures give new editors a very rough idea of how big or small articles are expected to be. Demands that an article be reduced in size to "comply" with SIZERULE are, at present, simply a misuse of the guideline. Personally I'd welcome a clear and broad consensus on the matter, but at this time at least it's not available in guideline form. That said, I agree that the list is too large. As for what to do about it: I really don't see the problem. If this was "my" project, I'd split the article in every practical way. (Remember, Wikipedia is not paper.) Keep List of castles in England as the central page. Merge its tables and strip some details (the pictures for instance). That way you'll have at least one page where the table sort feature is actually useful. Then I'd create sub-articles dividing the castles by age, type, location, owner and condition or (if none of those division criteria turn out practical) I'd split them alphabetically. Don't fret too much about in- and exclusion criteria. One castle can appear on multiple lists and the featured list criteria do not require "the defined scope" to be a bright-line test. Goodraise 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TRM: The reason we all struggle to edit large pages is nothing to do with your download speed. A file of 256 kBytes will download in just one second with a 2 Mbit/s connection. The server cache will serve you that file in less than 1/10 of a second. Where things slow down is when we edit a page - just try opening List of castles in England for edit and then [Show preview]. The server has to reconstruct the page and it takes about 50 seconds. If you ask your browser to display the page source of that preview, you'll see a line at the very end with something like this: Served by srv211 in 49.198 secs. When it takes that much time, the culprit is almost always templates, particularly citation templates, which unfortunately take huge amounts of server time to process. There are 463 {{cite web}} templates in use and that is what is causing most of your problems. I removed every {{cite web}} and previewed before cancelling the edit: Served by srv202 in 15.780 secs. So there you have it. If you really want to have a long page that is editable, you have to sacrifice citation templates. Sad, but true. There are some possible solutions but they would require developer effort, and there is little priority for that at present.
Paravane: I do understand your desire to have a single list of castles in England, but it's too big to edit comfortably with that many citation templates. At present, it's a beautiful list with a fine introduction, and I don't believe there is any problem whatsoever with reading or navigating the article. The template {{very long}} at the top is spouting nonsense and needs to be removed and mothballed as not-fit-for-purpose. Nevertheless, the article is only realistically editable by section, and probably needs to be split. It's grouped alphabetically by county at present. Have you considered a split along the lines of "Intro + Counties A-F"; "Counties G-P"; "Counties Q-Z" or similar (cf. Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (P–Q) et al.)? --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
RexxS, thanks for that, something to consider when I keep harping on about consistency in citation formats... In any case, yes, the suggestions by both RexxS and Goodraise seem perfectly acceptable, splitting alphabetically for instance. At the very least, the FLC community would not be surprised to see a split of this nature and most certainly would welcome your submissions to the featured list process should you wish to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If you prefer citation templates but don't like the bloat (they strain the server when processed as described above but they also actually bloat the rendered HTML) then consider the {{vcite web}} template family. They are virtually a drop-in replacement (just stick a v on the start) though their parameters are a little simpler for performance reasons so you may need to tweak some references to fit. The output however isn't Wikipedia's home-grown citation style but the Vancouver system so if you convert you need to establish a consensus for doing so on the article talk page per WP:CITEVAR. It's been done on some reference-heavy medical articles to good effect and greatly helps edit and load time. Colin°Talk 07:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I look back to the poor performance of Glossary of association football terms at DYK, and wonder how different it could have been if the load time wasn't so great; my understanding is that a hit isn't counted until the page has loaded. The situation may well be the same for some TFLs, although I have little evidence to support the theory. One alternative could be to encourage people who are writing lists from scratch to format citations manually. It's probably too onerous a suggestion to be a credible large-scale solution, but the effect on load times would be dramatic. —WFC— 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that's all very helpful. The reason there are so many references in List of castles in England is because each entry in the tables has one, even if there is a wikipage for that entry. I have received advice at Wikipedia:VPP#Request for clarification on guidelines regarding the need for references that these references (within the tables, where there's a link to a wikipage for the site) are not needed, I'd like to establish if there's a consensus on this. If the number of references can be reduced, the {{cite web}} form dispensed with, and the number of pictures reduced, perhaps a split can be avoided. A single table is another option which had crossed my mind but I think losing all the pictures would make the list less interesting. If a split becomes necessary, alphabetic by county might well be best. Sub-articles are planned by county, some already exist, 2 at least are FL status. Paravane (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
You've been given some poor and unhelpful advice over at WP:VPP. I've responded there. If you think a list of all castles in England is useful but too large with pics, then perhaps it should be shorn of its pictures. Then have separate lists of castles per county that are fully illustrated. Please also consider the alternative citation templates or better still manual citations (for simple web references like yours, they are actually trivial to write). Please also use UK date format for an English article, rather than ISO date formats, for the access/retrieved-on dates. Colin°Talk 19:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I have responded at WP:VPP. I probably inherited the ISO format, I think there is advice somewhere to stick with whatever you inherit, perhaps it should be changed. Paravane (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reported over at WP:VPP that removing the citation templates has as predicted made the page much easier to edit. Currently, the text size has been reduced from ~256k to ~212k without the loss of any content - by removing templates, changing the sort mechanism and abbreviating web references. Paravane (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary timestamp, partly because I think this discussion is relevant to a lot of large FLs and potential FLCs, partly because I would like to link to this discussion from elsewhere. —WFC— 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello all! Just a quick note to thank you all so far for everything you've all done to get us and keep us on the main page once a week. It's been a success, no doubt about that, and I'm hoping we can keep up the good work. To that end we need more nominations and more reviews at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. There are already over 50 lists there but we need some support/suggestions as to how best to load them up into the system so TFL is interesting, varied and not (as some perceive) a "cookie-cutter" route to featured content. Please, if you can, spare five minutes either reviewing a nomination or nominating your own idea. Many thanks, and keep up the great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we only get one a week? All other sections are at least daily. Which day of the week is it?PumpkinSky talk 18:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
It's all we thought we should go for in the first stages of getting onto main page, and was sanctioned by the community. It's Mondays, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
We should go for one a day. We have over 2000 FLs and 50 in the Today's FL list.PumpkinSky talk 19:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but in the mean time, if you can spend some time reviewing the list, and suggesting other potential nominees, that'd be brilliant. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
We can barely even get one list a week through the submissions process. One a day is out of the question at this point. As I"ve said before, I fear there just aren't enough people currently active in the FL process to support TFL and FLC. I also wonder how much the TFL review backlog is discouraging nominations. It must be tough to see your work potentially stagnate for a year. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I think there was a little misunderstanding early days when it was suggested we should have 50 nominations queued up to prove to the community that we'd be capable of doing more than one a week. We may need to remove a few of the submissions but we also need to engage reviewers more in that process. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Half the battle is getting blurbs written by someone who is willing to work on a list in order to get it onto the main page. Once you get to that stage, you can usually assume that improvements will happen when the list gets a review (even if the list starts off in a terrible state). On the other hand, Giants is right that 50-60 simultaneous reviews is not remotely sustainable. IMO we want to keep submissions 100% open, but streamline the number of lists that are reviewed at any one time. —WFC— 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, did some work on the backlog this morning, we've now got 18 queued waiting for a main page date and 27 submissions. It would be good if we could get some more definitive reviews on those so we can make decisions one way or antoher. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whilst we've got people's attention on reviewing etc, I'll make a comment about the bold link to the list. Unless you, like me, are an avid reader of WP:TFLSTATS, you won't know that one recent TFL (List of Donkey Kong games) got many fewer hits than it should have done because the bold link to the list came after the normal link to "Donkey Kong". Please write / copyedit blurbs to get the bold link as soon as possible, so that readers don't lose focus and click off to another article. Blurbs with the bold link several lines in risk having a low hit count, which would be a shame. BencherliteTalk 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Bencherlite, good point. And while you're here, doing little else, why not go review a couple of those submissions...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

FL directors...

No discussions have been closed (either promoted or archived) for almost a week, and I'm pretty sure some of them can be closed safely at this point. And yes, I'm asking because my one nomination has four supports and no opposes after a month and a half of discussion, but the need for closing discussions probably also applies to other nominations. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok ok, will see what I can do soon unless Dabomb or Giants beat me to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
TRM closed some lists and I just promoted one. There are a few others that we've both supported which are near the closing point; maybe Dabomb can take a look at those. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I my self wonder if it will also be possible to reword the blue lead. where it say 10-days twice. maybe change it to a month/30-days?
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
We still should strive for ten days, although we are low on reviewers and have been for some time. I think we should re-visit this in a couple of months, when winter hits and folks like sitting in front of a warm laptop instead of on a beach somewhere... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:DISCOGSTYLE

Hello all. We have a number of discogs up at the moment for review. Recently I tagged the above style guide as "dormant", soon after the dormant template was changed to "failed". So, in short, DISCOGSTYLE is a "failed" proposal. Some editors continue to use it as either an excuse to revert changes or as a reason to object to a candidate list. There has been a minimal level of discussion at the talk page of the proposal, but nothing near approaching a community-wide consensus. Would appreciate some folks who are interested in discogs popping over there to resolve this, or, at least, to encourage others to stop using it because right now there's no consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nested footnotes

Resolved
 – #tag:ref function has now been fixed (as has the multi-level sort bug). —WFC— 14:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Editors that use the #tag:ref method of footnotes will probably have noticed that yesterdays upgrade had a fairly ugly knock-on effect. See Tropical Storm Debra (1978)#Footnotes for an example. The relevant bug report is here. I know that to an extent this is like asking how long a piece of string is, but any idea how long this sort of thing generally takes? I ask here in the hope that I don't need to completely redo my referencing for an upcoming TFL. —WFC— 18:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, they mediawiki folks have an obligation to fix all the issues they've rolled out. There seems to be dozens of them, and it's indicative of a poor testing regime. Double-header sorting now fails as well, and there are multiple other issues, all plain to learn about at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If I had this many issues with the third-most popular website in the world, I'd roll back and test locally before reinstating this new version. Dreadful management. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Christmas TFL (and more)

Hello folks. I realise that I've taken a mildly autonomous approach to WP:TFL since its introduction, but the good news is that nothing broke and it's settled in quite well I think. However, I'd be certainly interested in a couple of things. One long term, one short term. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What list should we try to feature on Boxing Day?

This year, the nearest Monday to Christmas is Monday 26th December, i.e. Boxing Day. So, please, suggestions of existing lists, or even better, a drive to get a new (related) list promoted by then, we have about two months, should be more than possible! (I know it's cheesy, but I'm sure we could find a suitable "boxing" list?) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

At a glance, the boxing list is in reasonable shape, but it is an older FL and could probably use some work. In the key, I just saw "Major Organism" and "Minor Organism", which I assume are each meant to say "Organization". Reminds me of my biology class in college. :-) If a Christmas-related list is considered acceptable, we have List of Christmas number one albums (UK) and List of Christmas number one singles (UK), and the albums list is a new FL. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How's the selection process going?

Just wondered if people were reasonably happy, mad, delirious, infuriated by the choice of TFLs thus far? In due course I'll be proposing a less director-centric approach, but only if there's a consensus in favour of a slightly more complicated approach which would involve the contributions of more than just the FL directors. Suggestions welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is going to sound odd, but I don't think we've been running enough pop culture-related lists. I count two that have been run so far (one each related to video games and television), and two more scheduled to run in November. There have been no music or movie TFLs, which is glaring when you consider how many FLs are based on those topics. I understand that we want to showcase a wide variety of lists, but having a strong base of pop culture lists isn't something we should be hiding. The Doctor Who list was a massive success (it had over 25,000 more hits than that day's TFA), leading me to wonder how the readers might respond to more such lists appearing on the main page. Of course, TFL is based on what's nominated, and such lists aren't being nominated at the moment for whatever reason. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A radical approach

From a TFL perspective I would like to get rid of the submissions page, as it undermines the simple and open to all mantra we started out on. But main page FLs need a quality check, and from a more general FL point of view much of the work that should in theory happen at WP:FLS or WP:FLRC goes through TFLS. I'm convinced that a lot of the improvements are happening specifically because of the main page carrot. Bearing this in mind, I ask you to at list think what I am about to say through before rejecting it out of hand.

In my opinion what we need to do is more closely integrate the featured list processes. I think we should convert TFLS into a centralised list review page, from which TFL selection, FLC and FLRC feed. Even the more open-minded regulars will at first glance see this as barking mad, but there is strong logic behind it. Lists promoted at FLC, accepted at TFL, or kept after FLRC should all be held to the same standard. All three of them need a consistent quality of review for the integrity of the FL process, and I think a centralised review page would provide benefits to each individual one:

  • Newly promoted FLs are by definition ready to go on the main page on quality grounds, so there is no need to put them through a second quality check, which currently happens with TFLS.
  • Having a pre-FLC stage should take most of the drama out of FLC, which comes from supporting and opposing. My experience is that peer review is great for prose and structure, but an FLC-style review is superior for dealing with referencing, formatting and technical issues, which invariably benefit from discussion. To oppose lists with these sorts of issues is not the optimal solution.
  • The point of FLRC is that improvement is the first option, demotion the last resort. However, at present it is possible and indeed quite common for people to vote or !vote for something to be delisted on the same day that issues have first been identified.

I can think of other benefits:

  • The environment should become more collaborative, as no-one would be voting at the same time as offering feedback. Putting yourselves in a nominator's shoes, compare "Oppose I think these things need to be done to improve the list:..." with "Comment I think these things need to be done to improve the list:..." or simply "I think these things would improve the list:..."
  • While the director's workloads would remain roughly the same, fewer sub-standard FLCs would actually make it to FLC, which should hopefully make the role a bit less stressful. Furthermore, reviews usually come to a natural conclusion, so you could simply close a review when it goes stale, rather than feeling the need to wait for a clear consensus to form one way or another.
  • Once the review has happened, FLC and FLRC should speed up dramatically, as a large number of FLCs/FLRCs would not require significant discussion.
  • TFL quality checking would benefit from the one-and-a-half-at-a-time rule that exists at FLC, as well as from the exposure that being on the same page as FLC reviews would bring.

So, am I completely bonkers, or does anyone else see value in something like this? —WFC— 08:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bonkers.  ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to list some quick thoughts on a few of the main topics.
  • How long would such a centralized page be? With all the articles from TFL and FLC, it figures to be at least 60 or 70 lists long. I don't know how many of the regular reviewers will have the patience to sift through that and find what they're interested in.
  • I actually agree that newly promoted FLs should get a free pass as far as quality goes. If they don't meet all the standards when promoted, something went wrong during FLC. Maybe it would be worth it to have a special section on the submissions page for reviewing blurbs only.
  • I have no problem with reviewers offering an immediate oppose (or support) if they deem it neccessary. Those of us who review stuff want to see things reach the highest level possible, but we also need to maintain standards. If a list or article is far off of the expected standard, it deserves to be opposed until a time when it's not. I really don't want to see opposing taken out of the FL process any more than it already is.
  • As a reviewer, my workload would increase if I had to review an article in one process and support it at another. To be honest, I'm really not in a position to work at any more processes as it is.
  • The biggest problem FLC and TFL have is a lack of reviewers, which causes bottlenecks at both processes. With a centralized page, all you're doing is moving the bottleneck to a different page. As long as the lack of reviewers persists, the process as a whole won't speed up that significantly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Should a key to a table precede the table, or follow it?

Should a key to a table should precede the table, or follow the table. The discussion is here. Thoughts would be appreciated [Please leave them on that page, so as to centralize discussion ... ]. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss issues concerning Featured lists on this page, particularly as Killervogel clearly indicated that his "user talk page isn't really the best place for this discussion". After the discussion has been archived, who will remember to look for it among a user talk page archives? A link to User talk:Killervogel5#Key to table; discussion as to whether a key should follow or precede the table should be sufficient to allow readers of this page to see the preceding debate. Or we could easily copy the contents of that section here if that were preferred. --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
My only thought is that we need one central location, for a central discussion that bears on more than one MOS issue, and more than one page. I agree with KV that our one-to-one discussion on his page was not sufficient; we need more input. But putting part of the discussion on this pg would not make sense; this is broader issue than the question of what to do with FLs. If the discussion were in any one place, this would not be it. The discussion can always be copied and moved here (and to other relevant talkpages, such as the table MOS page) at the appropriate time if you like. As the discussion had already begun there, rather than bifurcate (or trifurcate) the discussion, I think continuing it there makes sense. IMHO. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
With a screen reader, or any other user agent that will normally traverse a page linearly, it is most helpful if we present explanatory information before it is needed, or at least close to its first occurrence. That's why we usually explain acronyms on first use like this: "Featured List Candidates (FLC)", thereafter "FLC" will normally suffice. I would recommend that the same principle be applied to keys or legends for tables, e.g. we benefit some disabled users if we give them the information that '†' designates "Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum" before they encounter the † in the body of the table. Some visitors can't simply flick to the explanatory information beneath a table and then quickly find the place where they left off, in the way that sighted users may be able to. Even for sighted visitors, a large main table may make it awkward to scroll to the end and then return after reading the key. In brief, I believe putting keys/legends before the main table offers an improved experience for certain visitors.
Nevertheless, this all assumes that a visitor can remember all of the information provided in the key while they traverse the main table. For that reason, I'd caution against over-large keys, although strongly mnemonic indicators like '1B' for "First baseman" may allow larger keys to be recalled by the visitor.
As an aside, I'd usually agree with MOS and advise editors to expand column headers wherever practical – for example at Silver Slugger Award, the headers would read "Outfielder", not 'OF'. However, with the rollout of mediawiki software version 1.18, the entire column header cell has now become the clickable trigger for sorting on that column. This make it problematical to wiki-link all or part of the header text. Until that problem is fixed, the format currently employed in Silver Slugger Award, permalink, is probably preferred. I should add that the † symbol is inaccessible and ought to be replaced with {{†|alt=Hall of Fame member}} or something similar. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Like I mentioned in the above discussion, I haven't had time to upgrade all 50-some of my FLs to current standards, but it will be accomplished sooner rather than later. — KV5 • Talk • 10:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Two former FL

A director might want to take note of this. Regards, Goodraise 01:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Bottleneck?

It's been almost exactly two months since K-Ci & JoJo discography was nominated, and almost one month since the last edit on the nom. Five people (including myself) have commented, including four reviews of substance. Everything looks resolved, but the nom has been clogging up the drain (along with Radiohead and Katy Perry discogs) at the bottom of the Older nominations section. So (although I don't want to stir anything up) what's the holdup here? I'm interested in the first place because I spent time reviewing the K-Ci & JoJo discography (and have worked on Katy Perry, heh), but also because I don't completely understand the FLC process. Is there something still missing on this nom? Is it just overlooked? Are you directors just busy? Is there insufficient consensus? What's the bottleneck? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In practice, lists aren't promoted without at least three explicit supports. I'm counting only one, yours. This practice makes sense because the featured list criteria are quite extensive and not every reviewer is capable of reviewing or willing to review a list for compliance with all of them (as far as that is practically possible). Also a reviewer might not feel that a list should be featured, but is incapable of giving or can't be bothered to give a reason for that. Hence, it should not be assumed that because a reviewer has capped their comments that they're in support. Hope to have shed some light on the issue. Goodraise 06:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The main cause of the bottleneck is that we have very few reviewers at the moment, for whatever reason (maybe part of a general decline in editing?). If there are no supports from the community, or little support, it can't be said that a particular nomination has consensus. This reviewer shortage makes it much harder for a list to gain consensus than it has been in the past, and FLCs take longer as a result. If FLC is clogged with noms, the best solution often is to close old noms so that they can have a fresh start; this isn't really necessary with 25 noms, but I'm still concerned about the length of time the process takes now. It's not good to have two-month-old nominations. If I was to give everyone reading this some advice, I'd say to do a few reviews. That would help keep the process flowing, and if you have an active nomination it helps reduce the number of competing noms. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks, guys. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Substantial" support

How much support is "substantial" enough to list a second nomination? Albacore (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The wording on the project page is intentionally ambiguous. As far as I'm concerned, this is enough. Goodraise 17:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that what's in the first FLC qualifies as substantial support. Feel free to bring another list to FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ouch

Hey all. Just wanted to pop in to say that I'm super-aware that I'm not really fulfilling my role as an FL director too well. A change in my real life circumstances and a focus on WP:TFL has made it difficult for me to spend the time reviewing, promoting and advocating lists. I'm very sorry about that. I've been involved in this since early 2008, and directing (now and again) from mid-2009, but I'm conscious that I'm not pulling my weight right now. I guess the point of this post is to ask if the community would rather see me replaced as a director with a more active editor. Of course, I'll certainly be working hard on lists, reviewing and creating, but I don't want to be a dead weight here. Anyway, would be interested to see what you all think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You've still got my support. We all experience the condition known as "busy" and you're doing a fine job. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
TRM, you are the furthest thing from dead weight that I can imagine. You've basically been carrying TFL by yourself, which I'm partly to blame for (difficult to find time for that and FLC). KV5's right; we all have peaks and valleys in our editing, but that's why we have three directors in the first place. If one is less active for a period, the others can make up for it. I hope that you'll stay on, and I think everyone else here does too. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
👍 Like BencherliteTalk 23:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Seconded! Ruby 2010/2013 05:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a list?

(Cross posted from WT:FL) I'm currently working on improving the list of stations in Slow Train - intending to tabulate it, provide better references, footnotes, etc. As this forms quite a substantial part of the article, would it be considered a list article, and a possible future candidate for FL? (Note that I'm well aware it's nowhere near featured status yet, I just want to know whether it could be considered a list at all).  An optimist on the run! 09:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd think that a song article would be better suited for the GA/FA processes than FL. It does mainly consist of a large list, but song articles usually have list-like elements such as chart placements, credits, track listings, etc., and we don't consider them lists. Part of the issue is that this seems to be more about the stations than the song itself, unlike typical song articles. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RS question

Hi! Is MovieCityNews.com (http://moviecitynews.com) an acceptable source for FLs? Crystal Clear x3 05:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Boxing Day TFL

Hello all. If the stats are anything to go by, our Today's Featured List (List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones) received 14k hits on Boxing Day, compared with 7.6k hits for the featured article that same day. Well done everyone, this is a brilliant result and truly justifies our place, albeit occasional, on the main page!! Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TRM! If I may say so, that is the type of list that we should be running on TFL more often. We have all of these music/movie/TV FLs, many of which would attract a great amount of attention from our readers, but we've only had a few of them on TFL so far. I'd like to see more nominations at WP:TFLS for lists from these genres in the future. I know there may be concerns if we put too many pop culture-related lists on the main page, but if we have high-quality lists that readers will enjoy, I see no reason to avoid using them on occasion. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. My tendency has been to avoid the classic "featured lists are just sports/discogs" kind of crap we'd get, but this is a massive landmark for us, and you're right, we should do this more often. I would like to have an element of flexibility so we could feature relevant lists (like this one) as and when possible, and then scatter more pop culture stuff around these dates. More nominations, more !voting, more fun!!. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well done all. I'd add my voice to the call for more 'popular culture' lists: sports, pop music, TV, whatever. We have established serious credentials with the more academic FLs, and it will not hurt to showcase content that would appeal to a mass audience a little more often. --RexxS (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
We've demonstrated beyond any doubt that we are capable of bringing traditional material to the main page. I therefore agree with the argument of upping pop culture TFL frequencies, with an emphasis on the topics Giants mentions which have been relatively underrepresented so far.

I think a bigger challenge facing us in the new year (I say "us" in the hope that I'll be back properly in the near future) is to get better at anticipating what will be talked about, when. Of the approximately 30 TFLs thus far, only three directly tied into what was being talked about in relatively mainstream media at the time: Doctor Who serials, Gordon Bennett Cup (relatively speaking) and X-mas number ones. All three did very well in terms of hit counts. By comparison and with the benefit of hindsight, I'd describe Watford F.C. seasons, Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame and Grammy Award for Best New Age Album as being great lists which were possibly posted at the wrong time. —WFC— 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses. For those of you who think we need more pop culture (and I agree), perhaps you could chime in at the nomination/voting section at WP:TFL if you have particular ideas about what should be scheduled and when. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Once I've had time to do a quality check I'll nominate List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates for 13 February 2012, to coincide with the season 12 premiere which will air in the early hours of that day (UTC). —WFC— 16:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool, I've also created this page to help form a view of the year ahead in TFL terms. Feel free (everyone) to add suggestions, whether they're ready for main page or not, so we can focus on getting relevant lists on the main page. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Will make some sports-related suggestions on that page when I get time. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Got one in before a bunch more were added by others. Several lists were identical or similar to ones I was planning to put on the list, so no great loss there. Amazing how many good fits there are, isn't it? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:TFL selection

Okay, perhaps the next step on our way to "world domination", or at least or a more democratic selection of today's featured list, I've created User:The Rambling Man/tfl which is a simple timeline of the next year of Mondays. I'd like to encourage you all to contribute to it, to add suggestions of any currently featured lists to the table so we can decide, as a group, which lists best represent our project, and best coincide with the events of the world. Thanks to you all for the last few years of support, discussion and shouting (where applicable!), it's made our project, and Wikipedia as a whole a better place, and pushing our project to the main page is testament to that. Perhaps we can expand in due course, but in the mean time, please review lists at WP:FLC, nominate lists at WP:TFL and, once again, take a look at the sort-of proposed calendar at User:The Rambling Man/tfl to help shape the future of this project. Much love, happy new year. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews urgently needed

Many nominations at the bottom of FLC currently lack sufficient consensus for us directors to make a decision on whether or not to promote them. If the situation does not change, we'll be forced to either archive a bunch of nominations for lack of consensus or begin promoting lists with lower levels of support than we'd prefer. For those of you who are watching this page, please consider helping out by reviewing one or more lists, preferably those that are struggling to garner attention. As a process, we need as many of you as possible offering input on lists so that they can achieve the highest quality possible. That is, after all. what we are here to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Speaking as someone who has done more nominating than reviewing, it is time I perform my quid pro quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I should have time to look at a few tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Successful nominations not showing up on watchlists

Hi, I noticed that there was no indication on my watchlist that a nomination had been closed as successful. The archival of the FLC discussion, the tagging of the article with {{featured list}}, and the updating of {{ArticleHistory}} on the talk page are all done by a bot and marked as bot edits, which means that they are hidden from watchlists by default. Would it be possible for the bot to mark at least one of those three edits as a non-bot edit, so that nominators watching their nominations would see the promotion directly on their watchlists? I'm aware that this would mean that the edits also show up at recent changes, but that's probably not a serious disadvantage. Successful nominations are relatively rare so it won't result in any excessive spamming of recent changes in any case. Another option would be notifying the nominators by bot on their talk pages, but I'd prefer the watchlist solution because other people interested in the nomination can be watching it as well. Any thoughts? Jafeluv (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, I don't think hiding bot edits in watchlists is a default. Imzadi 1979 → 20:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, right. Apparently I've had that option checked for so long that I've forgotten it wasn't the default... Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Q re multiple nominations

Copied from WT:FL
Is it possible to have one discussion convering a number of featured list candidates in one go? If so, would it matter if there were 84 of them? Would it be better as seven batches of twelve instead? Just putting some feelers out for the future as I'm not ready to nominate yet. The lists are the various lists of shipwrecks linked from {{WWII shipwrecks}}, but the 1945 list hasn't been split yet. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the comment given at WT:FL, but would like some further input. The plan is to have all lists as complete as possible before nomination, and hopefully with plenty of input from MILHIST regulars before nomination. I think the 7x12 plan could possibly be just doable. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Having had a quick scan over a couple of those lists, there's quite some way to go. Best bet would be to nominate one, and then, if that goes okay, look at quick, successive nominations. Check out User:Killervogel5's nominations for his Philadelphia Phillies roster, A through to Z in about 20 lists. Each one was nominated in turn, and only when the previous had substantial support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak for other reviewers, nor am I saying other reviewers should do things like me, but before I place my '''Support'''. ~~~~ on a nomination page, I thoroughly review the nominee. That can take hours. One minute to create a nomination page per list is not asked too much. Goodraise 21:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
As do I. There were some good rationales given at the discussion about multi-list noms before I started the Phillies. (Not that that was my idea to begin with, but it's another place to look.) I would rather see individual noms. — KV5 • Talk • 01:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Goodraise, are you sure that "hours" will be enough. It might take "days" to review my 102,000+ edits. . Seriously, thanks for the input. Anyone know why there is no "Good List" ranking? Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You made over 100,000 edits to a single list? Goodraise 10:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, no. "Hours" should be enough then! Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As to the "Good List" question, this has been raised before and it was apparently deemed unnecessary. I personally would think it useful for those lists which are too short to be FL but are otherwise FL quality, but in that case, they are likely to be content forks anyways and should be melded into a parent article. — KV5 • Talk • 00:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Curse on that en-dash template

At MoS talk a user has said a reviewer here is insisting on the use of the template. It's a bad, bad idea. En dashes are either spaced or unspaced, and the template gives a thin space either side. This leads to its use in situations where a space en dash is required – such as here. Tony (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for that, Tony? I gave the following reply at WT:MOS#Daggers of the mind:
Quite a bit of research was done before {{dagger}} was created. No matter what you think Freedom Scientific said, we have a blind editor User:Graham87 who is very familiar with several screen editors. Here's his reply to Bamse when asked about how the dagger symbol sounded as used as a 'key' in a table in List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) prior to its FLC:
  • "Hi Bamse, those symbols are spoken correctly when I navigate by character with the left and right arrow keys, but they are not spoken when I'm reading the text, unless I set the punctuation level to all, which isn't a default setting. In other words, there's no indication that the symbols are in the text unless a JAWS user reads the text very carefully. Therefore, those symbols are not suitable for that table. This surprises me a bit, because JAWS reads most non-ASCII characters, no matter the punctuation setting. The symbol "*" reads consistently, and so do "^", "°", "#", and just about any other symbol I can think of, besides the daggers!" - Graham87[2]
The purpose of those templates is so that they can be used in a table to supplement the use of colour to convey a key or legend. I don't think I can make it any clearer to Fyunck than I did here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#daggers "I don't think anyone would see any benefit in replacing ndash with a template in normal running prose". If somebody has been requesting the use of the template, then we really need to see a diff for the context. It is also a bad, bad idea to confuse the necessity of using {{dagger}} for accessibility with the use of an ndash template, for which I can see no conceivable use. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
With the disclaimer that I express no opinion on the outcome, I would point contributors to this discussion to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 8#Template:Ndash. But as far as FLC is concerned, I cannot see a conceivable reason to demand its use (and would also like to see the diff if this has indeed happened). —WFC— 09:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_16&oldid=1145818735"