Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

WP:SAL and the WP:MOS

User:Green Cardamom has started a conversation at the MOS where she seeks to clarify the "rules" (I think this is supposed to be guidelines...) on what and what doesn't constitute a standalone list, with the Russian Booker Prize and whether it should be a self-contained article or have a main article and a List of Russian Booker Prize winners spin-off list being the focal point. Please contribute there should you wish to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of items in a list

I was wondering if there was a limit to how many items an article must have before it is said to be a list. For example I came across List of counties in Delaware and recommended that it be nominated at Featured List on the talk page, but it appears from its previous nomination (admittedly a while ago) that having only three items might not be enough for a list (again only two !votes so may not be representative). It was renamed to "Counties in Delaware" and passed GA review under this title. It was then moved back for consistency with other state list. This all happened over five years ago. If three is deemed enough for a list then I will nominate it here, otherwise I might try and get it moved back again. AIRcorn (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this list fit in the main Delaware article, per criteria 3b? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Its possible an otherstuff argument applies as there are lists of counties for all the other states, but that could be one option. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Our 3b criterion suggests that if a list can be safely incorporated into a main article (perhaps a possible GA or FA, by the way) then that's what should happen. We don't just say yes to lists because other similar lists exist, we judge each candidate on its own merits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just wondering what to do with it as a list can't be a Good article and it seemed a little harsh to delist it without first giving it a fair shot at becoming a featured list. I will put some merge tags on it and see what happens. AIRcorn (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are only three items on the list, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be a standalone article. There may be lists with more items that probably should be merged into another article, but that doesn't mean this should be. As The Rambling Man said, each list should be judged on its own merits. So, my preference would be for someone to nominate it for FL status, and then we can have a debate there about its merits. It was nominated for FL status five years (!) ago (with one support and one oppose, so no promotion). Tompw (talk) (review) 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

possible FP, but no article

Can anyone suggest a suitable article for this 26 January 2013 Satellite photo of a snow-covered GB, taken by MODIS on NASA's Terra satellite? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=80291&src=nha For all my efforts I can't find anything, but I think it might make a good FP, despite File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg being similar. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Volunteering

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I start this thread because I have noticed that the Featured lists process is having some issues with the team of volunteers that is designated to help the process run smoothly. Of the four members of that team, only two - The Rambling Man and Giants 2008 - are actively working at the process. Dabomb87 has not been very active in the project as a whole, and has not performed any FL-related action since August 2012. On the other hand, NapHit, although still active, is currently on a one-year trip to Australia and may not be available during that time. After a short discussion I held with The Rambling Man, I have decided to present myself to be considered as a volunteer of the FLC process, as I am willing to help as much as I can, and be actively working at the FL process so that it runs more smootly. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If any more assistance is needed, I would too be interested.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not mind assisting if necessary. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I support Hahc21 in its suggestion to be a FLC delegate (or volunteer whatever) because I believe in his editor skills. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• In the past, directors have wisely chosen their delegates. I see no reason to break that tradition. If they think you can do it, you have my support as well. Goodraise 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I am convinced that Hahc has not the ability to do that task, just like his supporters above. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 22:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If you can provide a more detailed comment, so that I can improve, it will be much appreciated :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Well, there are many reasons why, but here you go. First it appears you don't understand the meaning of volunteering. Everything what you do on Wikipedia is voluntary. One user has expressed his confusion, yet supported the decision. And why should a simple and short discussion be a reason for your proposal? Ok that was just one example, feel free to convice me that you are ready to be a "volunteerer".--Tomcat (7) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't have to convince you further. I am still expecting to see some constructive comments so that I can improve, but I guess I won't have them. Regarding this thread, "volunteering" here is not the same as volunteering at the rest of the pedia (with some exceptions). As you may know, not everyone can do some tasks at FLC, which are to be done only by specific users. The Rambling Man asked me to start a community discussion here to see what community thinks about me volunteering here, and I followed his advice :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
        • My oppose is not earthshaking and consensus may be reached with a myriad of supporters. I am still not convinced if you know how to handle the tasks (eg when exactly a nomination should be closed). NapHit showed that he understands how to do that, so he quickly became a delegate. I advice that you make some closings before you are elected. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Sadly, I can't take your advice. As I stated above, only the directors, or delegates, can close FL nominations. I guess you may already know that :P I think that, after being helping at FLC (reviewing) and after getting several of my lists to reach FL status, I can understand when a list is ready to be promoted and when it isn't. Anywas, I appreciate that you took some of your time to voice your concerns, and to answer my follow-ups. Thank you :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Per you comments above, especially when you referred to the delegates and the large backlog, I thought you intended to do the same tasks. So, do you want to be a delegate or director, or something else? Can you explain what duties you had in mind? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 23:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes, I intend to do the same tasks, which makes this a community discussion to make me a FL delegate, I think. I don't want to be a delegate; I don't like how it sounds. I want to help doing what delegates and directors do, provided that Two of the team (Dabomb and NapHit) are not completely available to do them. Dabomb is inactive at FLC, and Naphit is on a one-year trip to Australia, which reduces his ability to work at wiki as he might want to. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
                • I struck out my oppose, because it seems that you don't want to act as a delegate, but simply help out in a certain way. --Tomcat (7) 10:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• If the directors are fine, I have no issues. But we only need one extra volunteer. Too many and you're tripping on each other's toes. As an additional note, I don't want to compare FAC and FLC, but FAC seems to be doing well with two active delegates (I could be wrong). FLC has less traffic too. But as I'd said, if TRM and/or Giants2008 approves, you're good to go. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21 sent me an email to enquire as to Dabomb87's recent lack of contributions at FLC, I said if Hahc21 was interested in volunteering to help, I saw no issue with it. Of course, it's up to our community to decide. It's true, we don't have massive backlogs at the moment, but there's nothing to suggest that Giants or me will be here forever, so having a few extra hands on the pump isn't such a bad idea in my opinion. Maybe the community need to discuss the actual scope of responsibility? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take a step back from being the editor who has done the lion's share of the work here for a few months, so I strongly support the idea of a new delegate. Hahc, if you're interested the instructions for closing FLCs/FLRCs are at User:Matthewedwards/FL. I'm sure you could do a good job if you want the position. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well If Giants is saying he's overloaded by this, then we definitely need a hand. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Then, it will be an honour to be able to help here as a delegate. I will read the instructions carefully :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@TRM(16:32): What's there to discuss? Directors are editors charged by the community to run the process. Delegates are editors appointed by the directors to do specific tasks. If a delegate screws up too much, we'll simply blame the directors for appointing the wrong editors, and stage a coup. Sounds like the perfect arrangement to me. :p No, seriously, why would we even make a distinction between directors and delegates if both have to gain community support? Anyone truly unhappy with how things are done around here can always resort to a constructive vote of no confidence. Goodraise 18:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we just don't want to become FAC where they have God in charge who doesn't contribute to the process at all. I want FLC to be fully community-run and sanctioned. Forgive me if that's not in line with your norms!  ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where these views are in conflict. I said directors should do what they please, and you appear to be doing just that. :) Goodraise 19:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Hahc is very familiar with featured lists and I believe that he would be perfect for the job. Clearly, we could use some helping hands.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:14, 10 February 2013 (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.

Nominations not closing?

I might be barking up the wrong tree, but it looks like a few recent nominations have been removed from the list, but not closed properly. I keep up to date with the cricket comings and goings using this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts, which lists nine open FLCs. However, reading down through the list on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, I can only see five of those. Looking at the FLCs for the missing lists, a number of them definitely appear in the closure log, as far back as nine days ago, but nomination pages remains open, the talk pages and the articles themselves don't show as having been promoted. I have only noticed this with cricket relation articles, but it is possible / likely to be replicated elsewhere. Harrias ^talk 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a problem with Gimmebot not closing them down, it last ran on 31 January 2013, similarly User:Gimmetrow hasn't edited since then either. If we can't get it running through our closures in due course, we'll need to get some volunteers to help with closing these down manually (like the "good old days".....) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Until the bot is up again, I am doing the extra steps that the bot should do. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update: At my request, Vacation9 is coding VoxelBot to replace GimmeBot at both FAC and FLC. Hopefully, we will have a new bot to help us soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

List of West Virginia Counties Nomination

Hey All- I cant see how I messed up submitting List of counties in West Virginia, BUT I did. Can I get some help???Coal town guy (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You had to put the template at the top of the talk page. I think I solved it by now. Have a nice day :) — Hahc21^talk 15:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, its a learning process, I just took longer (of course)Coal town guy (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. I struggled the first time I nominated a list too :) — Hahc21^talk 15:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

MUCH appreciated. The list before edits, was well....in need of work. I am however VERY pleased with the help the community has providedCoal town guy (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure. If you ever need help, ping me at my talk page, and I will be more than happy to asisst you. Regards. — Hahc21^talk 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Question I have, before submitting this for FLC, reviewed ALL of the FL county lists...Many do not have any refs for entire columns, a few have dead links, a majority do not follow the date in the same century suggestion...and yet, they garnered support rather quickly. I will to the best of my ability follow this or any procedure, and I have and will follow any comment given as constructive, however, has the standard become harder? What have I missed? Any feedback is appreciated. I very much appreciate the help I have received thus farCoal town guy (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is quite possible that standards have tightened over time - it's quite common to hear at Featured Article Review that articles that passed FAC in the past would no longer do so. The same is likely true of the Featured List process and comparisons over time are notoriously difficult. Sometimes it may be clear that an entire table is referenced to a single source, at other times, individual cells may need attribution, and there's no hard-and-fast rule to determine that; it may simply depend on the comprehensiveness of a given source. Unfortunately WP:LINKROT is a phenomenon outside the control of FLC; who knows how long it may take for dead links to spring up? If you do see weaknesses (like the date in the same century), please fix them if you have the time, or drop a line on the article talk page; it may save a FL from a future Featured List Review. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RexxS, yes, that does help. I had thought that if any article is the "best" of wikipedia, it would have some check, link rot etc etc. I am in some ways glad that the standards have tightened as this will improve the overall quality of the lists. It does however make it a tad more intensive. OH and feel free to look at the list, I think its as ready as it can be, BUT, I am always open to commentsCoal town guy (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In the case that a list does not longer meet our current criteria, you have two options. If able, and willing, improve it to make it up to sstandard. If you can't, or are not willing to, then nominate the list for WP:FLRC, where community will improve or delist the list. You can also start a thread at the correspondent Wikiprojects to let them know that some lists are in need of improvement and in danger of losing FL status. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I will follow the wikiproject option. ALL of these lists have had ALOT of work put into them. By the way, I have one support and look forward to your comments on the WV County FLC page...many thanksCoal town guy (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Both FAC and FLC have tightened significantly over the years. Back in the day they promoted to featured status what wouldn't even be B-class articles today. FLC used to be a bit sloppy when it came to MOS issues, but those days are over (though I admit it's been a while since I read the Manual completely). As has been pointed out by far better copy-editors than I am, FLC is still weak on prose quality, but that won't change unless more qualified reviewers show up. Goodraise 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciate the info. Well, if it makes a FL, I can happy to know its at a higher standard which is good for everyoneCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou

Hello,

could someone close Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou/archive2? It seems that she mistakenly opened a second nomination, because the first nomination is still running. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

April Fools

Just a heads up to everyone, as this year April 1 (and thus April Fools Day) falls on a Monday, I've created Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured List for editors to select a... proper list for the occasion. Cheers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Still rather empty... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Manual Closings

Please do not manually close FLCs any more; simply add them to the log as before. VoxelBot is currently on trial. Delistings are not covered by VoxelBot however, due to complications with the code. Vacation9 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Could Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Day International cricket matches played by Bangladesh and Ireland/archive1 by manually closed, as it seems to have been missed. Thanks! Harrias ^talk 17:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Another error

Hello,

could someone delete Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in West Virginia/archive1, move Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in West Virginia/archive2 to the first archive and remove the latter? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Will handle this. Thank you. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I think I've fixed the main incoming links but no doubt someone will check to see if I've missed anything major. Bencherlite^Talk 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is all done. Thanks Bencherlite :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

GA vs FL

I know that the question whether an article should be nominated here or at GAN is frequently asked, I would like to here your opinions regarding A Writer's Diary. It is not a diary at all, but contains numerous essays and other articles (including some short fiction). The article can be easily expanded, but not beyond the requirements of a featured article. So I am now struggling where to nominate it. Also it seems that a list primarly consisting of primary sources may have low chances for promotion. Regards.--— Tomcat (7) 13:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Without a look at how it'll be developed I can't offer a comment, but based on the title and our existing GAs I'm thinking this is likely to be a GA candidate whenever it's ready. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For a book, I definitely think that GA is the way to go. Even if the article winds up short, I'm sure GAN will give it a fair opportunity. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

SHould this move had happened?

Should this move had happened since its a featured list? [1] Thank you.174.17.165.198 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The move can happen, whether there was a consensus to move it or not is a different thing. Naturally the "redirect" cannot remain as a featured list so it should be removed from the list of featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it for FLRC here. Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Request feedback for how to bring Nissen Award to featured list

Hey, appreciate any thoughts on how to go about bringing Nissen Award to FL. Right now am thinking:

• Longer lead
• Prettier endnote citations (get a gnome to do it for me)
• Some photos, somehow?
• More fields in the table (but what?)
• Writing stubs for the redlinks.

Any thoughts? How to go after it?

TCO (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup - lots more introduction needed.

• Who was Nissen?
• How did the award come about?
• When did it start (1966 - but mention it in lead)?
• Does Nebraska dominate? If so, say so.
• Anything else interesting about the Award?

I couldn't find a gnome, so I fixed the citations myself.

File:Jonathan Horton.jpg is at least one athlete's photo. The one on http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=608651 would be ideal - shows the award and some winners. Email huskers.com to see if they will donate the image under a free licence.

The table is fine and is now reasonably accessible, although you could make an argument for or against a caption.

{{infobox award}} perhaps, if you are a fan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOHbihYbhE

Get writing those stubs! Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominating List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches

Hey. I want to nominate List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches as a FL, but am not sure on the procedure as it has been nominated in the past (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1888-1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive1), but the article name has since changed. There was this—Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive1—after the name changed to its current one. I haven't done this in a while; can anyone help? Or do I just follow the normal instructions? Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I would just nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive2, representing that this is the list's second FLC appearance. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that. - Shudde ^talk 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix

Hi! I'm wondering if people think that this is a list or not - it passed GA, but failed FAC because people thought it was a list (though this was quite a few years ago). Thanks! --Rschen7754 07:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those cases that is very much in the gray area of what a list is. You can make a good case for it being a regular article or a list with extensive prose. In this case I'd lean towards leaving it as is (as an article); it does have a structure that is article-like, and it could probably be expanded to contain more information such as a history section, which one of the FAC reviewers suggested. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the article-alert?

For some reason, List of FIFA Club World Cup awards, Records and statistics of the FIFA Club World Cup and List of FIFA Club World Cup awards are listed as FLC's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts, even though they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Does anyone know why it's like that? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

These were all created by a banned editor and never listed correctly so they've never been closed properly. As a tidy-up exercise, I've deleted them as non-controversial housekeeping. Hopefully the alert bot will pick that up in due course and remove them. Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Flashman Papers

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.

---

I have some concerns regarding the above article, and would appreciate some eyes at the talk page. It seems that the main contributing editor has some issues with any changes to this article because it has reached "featured list" status. I also would debate its inclusion as a "list article", due to it being an overview of a book series, that happens to incorporate tables as part of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it's a pity you didn't participate in the FLC where this was discussed and it was agreed it was a list article. Many articles fall into a grey area where it's possible to argue either way. I'm keen to understand why you've suddenly started to reorganise and tag this article on a wholesale scale when I've already told you it's scheduled for main page inclusion in three days time. Are you trying to prevent that, because the suggestions you keep making will make the article too unstable to be featured on Monday? Is that what you want? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, assuming bad faith. I don't care whether or not it's a featured list. What concerns me is whether this "featured list" status is preventing changes to the article to improve it. Any suggestion I have is not discussed fully because of this status. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is redundant now you've launched the FLRC. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2013 (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.

GAN

Reposted from GAN for your collective awareness. The article in question is Characters of God of War. Many people (including myself) feel this is a list, and therefore belongs here, not at GAN. Many others feel it is NOT a list, and does not belong here, but at GAN. Your collective inputs would be appreciated as to whether this article is suitable for FL or not.

There IS a precedent here, with the following articles ALL being classified as lists.

List of Naruto characters List of Uncharted characters List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters

Thanks, Retrolord. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not our problem. Whatever people at GAN or FAC think is too "listy", we don't reject. The last thing we need is playing tug of war over articles. Goodraise 14:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, I have a question. Based on previous experience, I am curious as to whether the regulars at FLC consider List of battleships of Spain to be stand-alone-ish enough to come to FLC? I'd rather not waste the time here if it's more appropriate for GAN. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Anybody? Bueller? Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a clear case. List of battleships of Spain is small enough that merging it becomes an option. If you nominate it, you will likely have to explain why it "could not reasonably be included as part of" List of Spanish Navy ships for example. Goodraise 20:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. GAN it is. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC proposing an adjustment to the governance of featured-article forums

Community input is welcome here. Tony (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Rude comment from The Rambling Man in a FL nomination

I really didn't appreciate this rude comment from User:The Rambling Man. Teasing people for typos is just dumb (let him who is without sin, cast the first stone, and all that), and dismissing what I think is a legitimate concern in a rude way ("We can't wait forever for mythical experts to pop up and say, hmm, I seem to recall an accident") is pretty poor form: I'm no expert on this topic, and I was able to immediately spot an omission from the list when I reviewed it. I've closed quite a few A-class reviews in my role as a coordinator of the military history project and am a frequent FA reviewer, so I'm comfortable with the concept of comments being judged sufficiently addressed by the delegate even when the commentator retains their concern - I have no concerns with my comment being judged as falling into this category. But it's pretty unprofessional for a FL director to be rude to people who have volunteered their time to post a review. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with TRM's main point, and his tone is not as bad as you imply (I wouldn't call that teasing, for one, as he quotes it and lets it drop... TRM is capable of some serious snark [ tame example, more direct ], especially at ITN, and this isn't an example of it). Comment on the article will be done at the nomination page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco: I may have been on my high horse when I posted the above. But there seems to be no need to be rude (something like "As a director I think that this comment is as addressed as it's possible to be" would have done the trick: the FA delegates have some good lines which they use). Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree, something more... politic, perhaps? ... would be nice. Mind you, when Ian gave such a reply at the second FA nom for Chinese Indonesians the person so addressed took it considerably worse than yourself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Well now. Firstly I find it rude that I haven't been notified of this little pow-wow. Secondly I find it rude when reviewers make non-actionable opposition to lists which editors have invested dozens of hours in. Thirdly, when quoting people I quote them directly, I don't spell check or grammar correct them. Fourthly, I'm not into political correctness, if you don't like that, that's just unlucky. I'm not here to trot out some boilerplate nonsense to make non-actionable opposers feel great. Fifth, there's no concept of "unprofessional" here, we're not getting paid. Some editors have invested huge amounts of time and effort here, and don't deserve the vague, hand-wavy non-actionable opposition they are served up. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Re: notification - I linked your name so that it would cause the notification thingy to tell you about this conversation, apologies if you don't have that enabled or it somehow didn't work. I'm afraid that I consider conduct here to be pretty poor form for someone whose main responsibility it is to encourage good natured discussions and participation. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think we've noted your feelings by now. My "main responsibility" however isn't as you suggest, it's to assess consensus and to note whether oppose or support votes are valid. The fact that I review every list that goes through FLC is out of respect for the nominators and the process. And I comment as an editor in that respect. Are we done here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

2,500 up!!

Hey FLC community. Just a quick note to let you all know we passed the 2,500 FL mark today! This is testimony to all the hard work put in by nominators and reviewers alike. Maybe one day soon we'll try for two slots per week on the main page, that's another story! Anyway, congratulations all round. Roll on 5,000... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

problem with closing bot?

I just noticed that List of sunken battlecruisers was closed about a week ago, but the bot hasn't updated the article history or anything. Is this a known problem?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other lists that Voxelbot was supposed to close and didn't?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the more recent FLC closures haven't been reflected by the bot on talk pages either. The ones that have been updated were given a helping hand by interested editors. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I will ask the bot owner to check for issues as soon as I can. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it's been a month with no action, I've gone ahead and manually updated the article history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

FL director

As User:Dabomb87 has been off-wiki since the beginning of the year, I recently contacted him to see if there was any problem with removing him from the position of FL director. He has indicated that this is okay with him. I'd like to personally thank him for all his efforts on-wiki but most especially at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Resignation

Hello all. As a result of a massive impending life change off Wikipedia (and few narky comments from various quarters on Wikipedia), I am resigning my own position as FL director as of now. I've been involved for a few years, had a few laughs and lots of insults, I've worked with some really excellent dedicated folks, and helped with getting our community's best onto the main page, but (as has been noted) I cannot commit to FLC as much as I feel a director should. I'm happy to help out where required (time allowing), and will continue to review lists wherever possible, but because I can no longer guarantee my time, I think it only proper to allow the remaining director and delegates to move on to better and brighter horizons without me. My very best to you all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the haters! You've done a great job at FLC, and I'm sorry to see you go. Don't be a stranger, and I wish you all the best in the future, both on and off Wiki. Take care. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers dude. I'll be here, just not as often. And someone else can be whinged at for not closing FLCs to the microsecond! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a pity. You've done a fantastic job, and FLC will miss you. Hope the impending life change is a positive one. all the best, Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Struway2, it means a lot. cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Knowing from a while ago off-wiki about this impending life-change (and massive is an understatement, believe you me), I wondered when this day would come - I knew it would have to come, really, but I'm still sad to see it. You have been a pillar of strength for the whole FL process, investing so much of your time and energy into reviewing lists and raising standards, and you have gradually been taking us with you! FLs these days are virtually unrecognisable from the way that they used to be when I started getting involved here, and you must take a lot of the credit for that. Very best wishes, both on- and off-wiki, and I look forward to seeing your name pop up in my watchlist / my email inbox! Bencherlite^Talk 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

TRM you may not be aware of it, but you are the one who inspired me to start writing (featured) lists. Good luck with your future endeavours, and thank you for all your contributions to the project. You will be deeply missed! — Bill william compton^Talk 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll be around, just not reliably! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I know that you and I have been in odds because of my disruptive behavior which I am very sorry for. However, FL would not be the same with you. You have been an ispiration to everyone. You take a lot time to review lists and promote them and some of us are not grateful ennough (espicially me, which I am very very sorry for) Thank you so much!. You thought me a lot about this process and I am very sad that you have resigned. I hope you could change you're mind but I completely understand and I apologize for evrything negative thing I said or did to you. I wish you luck and the best in wiki and real life!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I echo what the others have said, TRM. You've shaped the process into what it is today, and it won't be the same without you. This is a sad day for FLC, and we will all feel your absence at the top. Best of luck in all of life's endeavors, which hopefully will still include a fair amount of editing here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may be mad at me for reasons I can't comprehend, but those feelings aren't mutual. You will be sorely missed, even when you won't be gone completely. I wish you all the best, and hope that impending change in your life is of a positive nature. Goodraise 13:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll still be around a bit with luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck, TRM! Thanks for all the reviews and promotions you've given my lists (and everyone else's) over the years, and I hope you'll be around as much as you can. --PresN 23:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes, TRM! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously late to this party! Very sad to see you go TRM, even though I've only really encountered you less than a handful of times. Certainly a fine and nobel editor, along with your partner in 'crime', you have handled the FLC project magnificently. Best wishes for the future. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 21:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes and thanks for your dedication to FL project. Zia Khan 03:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto to all the above! Your responsible stewardship of the FLC process will be missed! Ruby 2010/2013 01:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I've always held your contributions in high regard, and it'll be a shame to lose you in such a vital role. However, I wish you the best in your "impending life change". Enjoy the new breasts. GRAPPLE X 02:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all, will still be around, just less often. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review problems

There is a real need to create permanent reviewers here, since to many articles fails because no one is interested... To stop this from happening, we should create volunteer reviewers or something who are responsible for reviewing articles in the "Older nominations" sections... So far, the major failure with this project, is that people review solely out of interests... Which of course isn't wrong, but there should be some who review older nominations so as to ensure that nominations don't fail because of a lack of interest. Nominations should fail because people oppose its promotion to FL status, not failure by users to review it. --TIAYN (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We are running low on volunteers, let alone permanent reviewers. If you can find these permanent reviewers, let us know! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Nominations should fail because people oppose its promotion to FL status, not failure by users to review it." – I couldn't agree more, but not having reviewed anything in ages, I'll shut up now. Goodraise 02:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the longest-running nomination has been going for nearly 12 weeks, how long would you allow them to remain? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely. I see plenty of reasons for why closing such nominations is harmful (I'll spare you the rant), but I can't think of even one half-decent argument for closing them. "So you'd have the list of nominations grow indefinitely as well?" Yes, at least then we'd get to see how big the problem really is. In fact, I think it's worth considering to go even further. What do you think would happen if A) nominations were no longer closed unless they were at the very bottom of the list, and B) failure to address concerns in a timely manner were to be punished by re-listing? Goodraise 19:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well given we have fewer reviewers than ever before, and (in my opinion) several reviews lack any real quality, you're right, we'd soon see that we have a problem. Then what? It's somewhat analogous to a talkpage which archives threads if no activity is detected for, say, 28 days. If no-one is interested in the list, no-one is prepared to comment on the list, no-one wishes to offer an opinion, why would we make the FLC page take two minutes to load up as a result of dozens of stalled transcluded FLCs? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not seeing the bigger picture. "Stalled" FLCs aren't throwaway talk page threads nobody cares about anymore. The nominator cares. And we should care too, especially if it's a new nominator, who probably had to invested five times as much effort into their list to get the same results as an experienced editor. Veteran nominators know how the game is played. Some of them review, some of them don't, but with new nominators it can still go either way. Which new nominator do you think will be more likely to become a reviewer, the nominator who receives speedy feedback (allowing them to improve a list they thought was near perfect to an unexpected level of quality) and a bronze star on top, or the nominator whose list is ignored for three month and then told in two words (i.e. "not promoted") that nobody gave a shit about their hard work? Sorry, rhetorical question. "Then what?" you ask. Well, then people will get cranky because the page is loading slowly and because nobody's lists are being promoted. And then the community will either foolishly return the process to its current state, or it will do what it usually does when it gets annoyed with an overflowing backlog, working it off. Goodraise 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, have you visited WP:GAN lately? The backlog is huge, and increasing, with some nominations hanging around for three or four months with no interest. I recently reviewed a GAN only to discover the nominator had semi-retired a month or two earlier. What, in reality, will happen if we have a massive backlog is that we'll have more of the "Support, looks good!" !votes which entirely devalue the review process, just to achieve a consensus, then a bunch of moaning because a list has eight "supports" without a decent review. Unfortunately we need reviewers, and we need good ones, and we need ones who are interested and/or knowledgeable in the areas being nominated. I have to say, I very rarely use two words when closing an unsuccessful (stalled) nomination. I usually ask the nominator to do something pro-active (this doesn't happen often either), e.g. to notify relevant projects that certain lists are being nominated (it happens on the main page of WP:FOOTBALL for instance, and isn't canvassing, just a notification). Nominators often whinge about lack of interest, but there should be some onus on them to do something about the situation as well as the two or three regular reviewers. Right now we need to pander to our tiny core of good reviewers I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unfortunately we need reviewers, and we need good ones". Yes, we do. Also unfortunately, asserting that over and over again won't accomplish anything. "Right now we need to pander to our tiny core of good reviewers I'm afraid." Well, I'm afraid that's the classical mistake. Whether it's a political party, an amateur football club, or a Wikipedia process, any organization that depends on volunteer work will suffer grave consequences if it doesn't ensure a constant influx of fresh blood. As for GAN, sure they have similar problems. The point is, problems aren't solved as long as someone manages to cover them up. Also, I'm not saying that allowing the nominations page to clutter up will all of a sudden make competent and eager reviewers appear who will allow the process to go back to the glory days of how things have been for years. Those times are over, and the process needs to change in some way, not necessarily in the way I think it should, but change it must. The only choice you have is to allow the process to evolve (i.e. to adapt to changing circumstances) or to watch it die. What's it gonna be? I have a thousand idea of how to change the process, but I get that people don't yet consider the situation desperate enough to listen to me. Well, I won't stop you from continuing to cover your ears and chanting "we need more reviewers", but I'm telling you, that's not going to solve the problem. Only out of the box thinking can do that. Goodraise 10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as you feel there's so much wrong with the process that you have a "thousand" ways to change it, other than allowing nominations to run ad infinitum, what else do you propose? I'm not "cover[ing] [my] ears", by the way. I don't believe I've ever done that. Where did I ever say the process must and will not change? I just think the fundamental issue is not whether nominations are closed after three months due to lack of interest/response, it's a lack of quality reviews. I'm not going to promote a bunch of lists which haven't been satisfactorily reviewed. In fact, if that was a suggestion (i.e. go with these drive-by "support, looks great" votes) then I'd just stick to reviewing lists and nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the course of action I suggest you take: Draw a deep breath, and relax for a moment. What I'm saying may sound to you like a vile attack on you personally and on your precious pet process, but it's not. I'm not the enemy. I know there's a lot of editors out there who consider FLC a waste of hard drive space, but I'm not one of those people. And what I'm saying will sound a lot different to you once you consider that possibility. What I'm not suggesting is being stupid. The FLC process as a whole is a complex system, and any changes to it would have multiple, often unexpected consequences, which would have to be dealt with, but that's no reason not to try anything. No plan, no matter how brilliant, is likely to work if executed by fools, so let's not assume that any decision we might make here will be set in stone and inevitably doom us if there is even the least bit wrong with it. Anyway, I completely agree that the core problem is a lack of quality reviews, but you're wrong in assuming that to be the "fundamental" issue. The real fundamental issues are whatever cause said lack of quality reviews to begin with. That's were you don't seem to allow your mind to go, I'd image because part of you already realizes that fixing that particular omelet will require the breaking of a few eggs. Now I could make more suggestions, but I don't really see the point because chances are you won't like any of them. So instead let me ask you a question: Why do you think there's not enough quality reviews? Goodraise 12:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's you who needs to chill out. Where did I say this was a "vile attack", since when has it been my "precious pet process"? Where did I say FLC wasn't prepared to change? Goodraise, I'm a little surprised by your tone. Most often I just review the lists here, and get the associated grief for doing so. I don't own the process, I've never said or implied it was my "precious pet process", that, frankly, is a pretty offensive accusation of ownership. Anyway, enough of the personal stuff. It's irrelevant what I think in any case, it's down to the community. As for lack of reviewers, I have no idea, many retirements, fewer active contributors, it seems endemic (looking at the backlogs at GAN/FAC etc). If you have any bright ideas on that topic, please fire away. The process belongs to Wikipedia, and with the thousand or so changes you could suggest, at least throw us a bone. So, please, after you. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm drawing you an adorable rabbit, but all you see is an offensive duck. Goodraise 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're saying there's something wrong with my tone? Well, you're probably right about that, but it's nothing I can easily fix. For me this is somewhat of a recurring theme on the English Wikipedia. I make some completely dispassionate comments, and all around me native speakers of English (yes, I don't speak English natively), become extremely defensive. From that point on it seems everything I say, no matter how I word it, gets perceived as an attack or an insult or whatever. My typical reaction to that is to simply go away, and do something else. I'm not quite there yet though. So it seems some (or possible a lot) of the things I said hurt your feelings. I assure you, that wasn't intentional, and I apologize. However, I can't change my tone; I wouldn't know how. If this was a face to face discussion, you'd see that I'm completely relaxed, and I'd probably be able to tell from your expression when you understood something as rude or insulting that wasn't meant that way, which I could then set straight immediately. This not being a face to face discussion, however, I can only ask you to cut my poor, non-natively English speaking self some slack and not assume a war crime whenever I open my mouth. I'd really appreciate that. Anyway, back on topic. You say you have no idea why there's too few reviewers, well I do. And it's not surprising that you have no idea either, because you're the exception. Things that keep potential reviewers from actually reviewing obviously aren't keeping you from reviewing. Now I have some theories as to why no new reviewers are coming in and why so many reviewers leave, but what I know for sure is why I'm not reviewing as much as I could. And that is simply that FLC has to compete for my free time with other activities, against which it loses ever more often because it's needlessly tedious, repetitive and unrewarding. I'm saying "needlessly" because I think these issues can be fixed. For example, we could create a mandatory checklist of quick-fail criteria, similar to User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check, but more specific. Consider this, if three reviewers spend a minute each to check the same list for whether all footnotes are in numerical order, then that's three minutes worth of reviewer time wasted on a task the nominator could have done. There's plenty of such reviewing chores that could be made (and actually should be already) the nominator's responsibility. Using en dashes instead of hyphens for ranges, using pp. instead of p. for multiple pages in citations, not linking to disambiguation pages, to name but a few. Goodraise 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Telling me FLC is my "precious pet process" is unnecessary, inflammatory and smacks of accusations of ownership. Can you see that? Moreover, I see no evidence to support that, other in your mind perhaps. I'm completely happy to discuss new approaches. As for the one suggestion you've made, yes, the checklist is something I was quite passionate about. However, this may result in many quick-fails. Is that more or less demoralising for our dear nominators than wallowing for three months with no interest? Beyond enhancing my checklist and mandating (?) it in the instructions, what more do you suggest we can do? Looking forward to the remaining 998 suggestions....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. There, that was apology number two. Will you require 998 more? I can see how you would be upset about being accused of "owning" a process, but I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that, yet I apologized for it anyway. Here I go a third time: I apologize for all the terrible things you think I said, whether or not I actually said them. I don't know what else I can do. I don't know who shat in your coffee this morning either, and I'm sorry about that as well. Now, am I forgiven? Because I'm not going back on topic until you put that axe and grindstone away. Goodraise 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who shat in my coffee with your unjustified accusations which came out of nowhere. I've never known you to talk to anyone quite this way. Please go ahead and discuss your ideas. The community is waiting. I will go back to doing other things in the meantime. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. If you want to stay angry with me over something for which I already apologized even though I didn't do it (which is why those accusations seemed to have come out of nowhere), then be that way. Goodraise 18:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Goodraise, please now go ahead and unveil your thousand improvements. Or perhaps half a dozen of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Under these conditions? Thanks, but no thanks. Goodraise 19:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pity, I thought you'd like to help the community rather than criticise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You sure this is about the community, and not about you? That's it, isn't it? I dared to criticize you, and now all you see is red. I've got off-wiki problems of my own, you know? I don't need unpleasant discussions on top of those, least of all with editors who can't think straight because their pride's been hurt. Goodraise 20:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, sure. There's no unpleasantness as far as I'm concerned. I'm seeing nothing but clouds and trees right now, no red. On the flipside, you claimed a thousand improvements could be made to the process, I just wonder now why you're so reluctant to tell the community what at least some of them are. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The community isn't asking to hear them; you are. And considering the way you've been treating me up till now during this discussion, I don't feel like answering anymore. Goodraise 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say "the community is asking", it would be helpful to tell the community your many ideas. And for what it's worth, I haven't treated you like anything. On the contrary, you're the one who bare-faced (and without justification) accused me of ownership (e.g. "precious pet process"). Re-read the above discussion. I'm the one asking for you to help, suggesting you could supply evidence of where I accused you of a "vile attack", asking you to point to where this is my "precious pet process".... You've done nothing but pretend to be the victim here. Get over it, stop handing out insults and become part of the solution, not remain part of the problem, I know I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I said "What I'm saying may sound to you like a vile attack on you personally and on your precious pet process, but it's not." And that's not the same as saying that FLC is your precious pet process or that you accused me of making vile attacks, yet I apologized for saying it. ("I apologize for all the terrible things you think I said, whether or not I actually said them.") Why can't you just forgive me? Goodraise 22:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that we are not that bad. Take a look at the logs and you'll see. Between 3 to 5 lists get archived every month, against 15 to 20 which get promoted. Usually, most of these lists that don't receive a star are because they are not ready or consensus was not totally achieved. Lack of reviews happens one list a month (or two, in excessive cases) and when it happens, I personally go and encourage the nominator to submit their work again, and explain them why it was not promoted so that they don't feel bad about it. I think that part of what's happening to FLC is because of an overall situation that has been invading Wikipedia since years ago.

For example, in 2008 we had more than 40 lists promoted each month, and now we barely reach 30 on a lucky month. That's because the number of active editors, and specially those who create content, is reduced. Is that an isolated problem of FLC? No. We need more reviewers, yes, but that is also a consequence of the former issue; most assessment processes are lacking participants. Actually, I feel that FLC is still working smoothly. We have our downsides but we manage to get content promoted constantly, and unlike GAN, users don't need to wait two to three months to start a review process that might ultimately fail. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think things were that bad either (all processes need more reviewers, FAC, GAN etc...), but Goodraise has intimated that there are a thousand ways of improving the process, yet refuses to engage with the community about them. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound as if there was something objectionable about not (wasting time on) proposing drastic changes to an established process the likes of which apparently nobody except myself thinks are necessary. Goodraise 22:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Goodraise:, I stongly believe that the process should change and others might agree with that, The Rambling Man was just asking for you to give some ideas of what should change, so that the community can disscuss, however you fail to do so. He just want to know them and want to change the process. Btw, I am dying to know you're ideas.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there is genuine interest after all, I guess I'll have to deliver now. Might as well start with a radical one: WP:FLC and WP:FLRC currently do for list articles what WP:FAC and WP:FAR do for non-list articles, which is fine. However, there are no list equivalents for WP:GAN and WP:GAR, and WP:PR rarely does as good a job preparing list articles for FLC as it does non-list articles for FAC. To compensate for this lack, we could broaden the scope of FLC, turning it into what one might call "lists for discussion" or "list review", similar to how things are handled over at the German Wikipedia. Such a five-in-one process would have a series of advantages. To name a few: less stressful environment, especially for newcomers, as there would no longer be such a thing as a "failed" outcome; no more making nominators jump through the basically pointless extra hoop of peer review prior to coming here; and we'd be able to implement a "good list" system without needing more reviewers. And of course, awarding "good list" status would make the process more attractive to newcomers and raw content creators who care less about MoS intricacies than the average FLC frequenter, while at the same time allowing us to push the demands on "featured lists" even higher (requiring for example "brilliant prose"). Goodraise 06:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't just assume that all of the present reviewers are going to rush to do extra list-related work. I'm not wild about the idea of using my diminishing editing time to push ill-prepared lists over the FL line, and I don't know how many of the other regulars will be either. It's unfortunate that the environment is stressful, but that's natural at a content review process like FLC; the best way to reduce stress is to have a list in good shape before FLC, with or without PR (it's not a requirement before a nomination, especially with some experience). Also, what is meant by "there would no longer be such a thing as a 'failed' outcome"? Does this mean that we'd just give the star (or a GL) to everything that comes through here? I couldn't think of anything that would do more damage to FLC's reputation than that. Assuming you meant that even FLC failures would generate ideas for improvement, isn't that what happens now in most cases? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Goodraise: The good lists idea was proposed several times before and never gained any speed. I did propose it myself once back at WT:GAN and then discovered that, unlike articles, where having an additional layer below FA is good, having an additional layer below FL isn't good. Featured lists are easy to get when you get the grasp of what you are doing. For example, the first list I ever nominated, Ricardo Arjona discography, was pretty tough. It failed and gave me much frustration but I learned a lot about the expectations of a FLC candidate during that timespan. Since then, none of my candidates have failed because I now know what is the requirement for featured lists. Also, I am also a bit concerned about the "there would no longer be such a thing as a 'failed' outcome" part. There are lists that definitely are not ready to become featured when they reach FLC, and sometimes is better just to teach the nominator which are the expectations of a candidate, and how to meet such expectations and close the nomination. Then, the user will put in practice what he has learned, and come back victorious with not one, but multiple featured lists. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Don't just assume that all of the present reviewers are going to rush to do extra list-related work. – I haven't made that assumption, nor is it a prerequisite for this proposal to work. Also, what is meant by "there would no longer be such a thing as a 'failed' outcome"? – Right now, when you nominate a list, you're basically asking the community whether it thinks the list is good enough yet, and the community answers with "Yes, great list!" (promotion), "No, still needs work!" (failure), or "Meh." (no consensus). In a combined process, the question asked would depend on the current status of the list. For a list that isn't a featured or good list, the question would be more general, something along the lines of "What do you think about this?" And the community would reply with "Great list!" (promotion to featured list status), "Good list!" (promotion to good list status), or "Needs work." (nothing). It's a 'glass half full, glass half empty' kinda thing, but it matters. Instead of being perceived as the bad guys who discourage editors by telling them in how many ways they've failed at producing featured quality content, reviewers could be seen as providers of feedback who may or may not see fit to award some encouragement in the form of a bronze star or a green cross.

@Hahc21: See above regarding the "no failed outcome" part. As for "good lists", yes, it's been proposed several times and always rejected because the benefits of having a good list status do not merit the investment in reviewer time it would require to run an additional process of GAN/GAR's magnitude. But that's just it! We don't need another process. We don't even need more reviewers or directors. We can have "good lists" with no significant increase in workload. And once we have that additional step below the featured status, we'll have the breathing room to make achieving featured status as challenging as it should be. Keep in mind that "featured articles" and "good articles" haven't always been what they are today. I have personally worked on former featured articles which at no point after their promotion or subsequent demotion were any better than what would today be assessed as a C-class article, and GAN started out as a list of articles arbitrary editors thought were "good". There's no reason "good lists" would have to start out at the same level as today's "good articles". We can choose to award that status loosely at first, and only tighten the screws down the line. Goodraise 05:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How many editors are we really discouraging, though? I just totaled up the FLCs that have been closed so far this year, and 178 of 250 (71.2%) have been successful. My suspicion is that that percentage is not far removed from what results from FAC, and may be superior. I know that a lot of editors are intimidated by the FAC process, perhaps overly so, but haven't gotten the impression that FLC is that scary in comparison. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

List of people who don't review as often as they should but who will try to review older nominations if given a (polite) nudge on their talk page

1. Bencherlite^Talk 11:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

New director?

With TRM's unfortunate departure from the position, we are down to myself as the only FL director. I feel strongly that we need at least one other person to help out with the process, preferably two. We can make Hahc a director, but then we'll be short on delegates. He started a page that proposes a new election for FL delegates at User:Hahc21/2013 delegate elections, and I'm curious as to what the community thinks about it. We have had elections in the past when we began running short on active directors/delegates, and think that we are at that point now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think an election would be okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, an election is very needed.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 03:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Electing delegates (rather than directors) strikes me as odd. I've been thinking of delegates as editors appointed by (elected or otherwise legitimated) directors to help out, but that is of course only my personal interpretation. If we expect the community to elect delegates, wouldn't it make sense to first clarify what makes a delegate different from a director? Goodraise 20:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the only difference is that directors schedule TFLs, which delegates do not. And, well, delegates are approved by the community before being appointed, or at least I was. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that an election appears appropriate, although the format of the election on the linked page seems odd to me. At the moment, it seems to list three different delegate roles (FLC, FLRC and TFL), though it only discussed electing two FLC delegates and one FLRC delegates. Personally, I think that is more additions than is needed, and more specific. My own suggestion, would be to hold two votes at the same time. Firstly, voting whether to make Hahc21 a director, as if we having an election anyway, it makes sense to vote on that too, and secondly to add two generic delegates, who could help in all aspects of FL. I don't think there is a sufficient quantity of FLRCs to require a separate delegate purely for that, and similarly, with four active directors/delegates, plus NapHit and the work of Neelix TFL should be manageable within that. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just axe "delegate" and go for two or three directors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The Rambling Man. Directors are way more important than delegates at this momment.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am fine as long as we get to appoint new users to give a hand. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have multiple directors, can we make sure that there is an odd number? Over on the FA side of the Featured Processes, one of the distinctions between director and delegate has been the nominal, and normally unneeded, avenue of appeal. In the rare case that a delegate's decision needs to be reviewed in closing a nomination, there is the possibility of the director handling the appeal. There is also the potential that for various factors, all of the delegates could end up recused or unable to handle a specific nomination decision. The reason I ask for an odd number here is that, push come to shove, we may need to resort to a raw vote count among the leadership to resolve a rare situation; an even number can tie but an odd number cannot. I don't foresee needing this possibility very often, but if we're in that situation it's already too late. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Elections

1. Nomination period (from 00:00, 4 October 2013 until 23:59, 14 October 2013, UTC) → during which interested editors are invited to submit a candidate statement.

   All users are invited to make questions to the candidates.

   An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

   (i) has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits by 1 October 2013

   (ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans

3. Voting period (from 00:00, 15 October 2013 until 23:59, 30 October 2013, UTC) → voters can vote on their preferred candidates to fulfill the selected positions.

   An editor is eligible to vote who:

   (i) has registered an account before 15 September 2013

   (ii) has made at least 50 mainspace edits by 1 October 2013

Okay, I have set up all the pages. I ommitted using the words "delegate" or "director" and instead just went with elections. We can decide which name the selected users will bear before the elections go live, given that with the timeline I have crafted (above), we still have 16 days of planification before the elections start. However, I still have some doubts:

• I think that appointing two new users is enough, but maybe three would be better. Thoughts?
• The prior delegate election ran for five days and about ~25 users participated. However, the whole election process was held from September 12 until September 20 (8 days). My planification spans the entire month of October, with separate periods for nominations, questions and voting (although the first two overlap). So, are ten days of voting enough to gather a considerable amount of participation?
• I was thinking that we could also cross post at WT:FAC and use this at the top of this page. I may also work on a Signpost announcement. But will we have a watchlist notice and a message at {{cent}}? I want as much visibility and participation as possible :)
• Any comments about the restrictions that both candidates and voters must meet?

Thanks in advance to all. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions. Does there need to be such a long time-frame for nominations and questions? Is there a reason for ten days? I can understand seven days (some editors are more active on certain days of the week), but I wonder if we'll be stretching out the process a little? I'd rather have a little less time for nominations and questions, and more for voting. Voting may take longer, especially if there are a large number of candidates and questions/comments. I agree that two is enough positions. I think the restrictions on candidates and voters is fair and reasonable. I think a signpost announcement and {{cent}} should be adequate, but if there are going to be more messages, I believe about delivered one to any previous nominees would be logical, although I'm not sure how easy to implement that would be. Overall I think it looks like an excellent framework for elections – good work. Shudde ^talk 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I can make the nominations and questions period seven days each, and then have 14 days to vote? Let me tweak and see. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Very old, unarchived FLCs

At WP:FLCL, there are FLCs up to 17 months old, which nominators seem to have forgotten to embed in the main WP:FLC listing. these should probably be archived, but I am unsure of how to go about in doing that. Adabow (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added some to the qeue (they had a month or less). The rest, though, I think I will have to manually archive them and add them to the respective logs. Thanks for the note. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Steeplechase 2013

The Triple Crown's 2013 Steeplechase Event is here! Get your horses ready and participate the race of the year All featured content nominated from October 1, and all content promoted from November 1, is eligible.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC closures

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.

---

I believe that they should be added a new rule for the FLC closures which is that delegates and directors should check the FLC candidates every week or every weekend since sometimes there are FLC ready, who have high level amounts of supports have to wait week or so just to wait to get it promoted. I know that happen to me several times, I had to wait so long since a director and delegate had not yet checked the FLC page. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. (a) There is no deadline (b) your continued haranguing of directors and delegates has become borderline disruptive (c) directors and delegates (and other contributors) are volunteers. In summary: you cannot mandate anyone here to do anything. The sooner you get the hang of (a), (b) and (c), the quicker you'll be more welcome to contribute here. If you continue to pursue your own interests and chase directors or delegates, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're excluded from the process altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – I agree with TRM. I would say "and I am sure the community will never agree with you!" Zia Khan 19:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I changed my mind, there is no need for any other editors to comment. Therefore, the subject is closed. Again, no need to comment unless you agree with me.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• So you've changed your mind, and want nobody else to discuss this to disagree with you. BUT... if people do agree with you, it's fine for them to comment? What rubbish, much like the original proposal. Harrias ^talk 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Never mind. I did not mean that. I meant... You know what, I do not owe you an explanation as fact no one.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The subject is closed, Please No one else comment wheather you agree with me or nit. Every one is going against me, I can't handle that! Please stop commenting.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

SoapFan12, you can't just tell other editors that the topic is closed and order no one to comment because you don't like the responses you invited upon yourself.

• Oppose I was a director for a year between 2008 and 2009, and there was a deadline then. Promotions had to be done by Wednesdays and Saturdays at a certain UTC time due to when the Bot operated (and IIRC, nominations had a use-by date of about 4 weeks). Granted, there were far more nominations then than there are today (three of the months I was director in 2008 had 112 nominations, compared to 2013 when 32 was the highest number of nominations in a month) but let me tell you, it was a nightmare. I actually scheduled my days off from work so I could do closures, which took a good couple of hours and it caused arguments in my family. After being away on vacation, then moving house and not having internet for about 5 weeks, then starting a new job, then being displaced for three weeks due to wildfires, all within the space of 3 months I realised that I could live without being director and Featured Lists could live without me. There was a lack of reviewers and people wanted to know why a 5-week old nomination hadn't been closed (probably due to having a lack of reviews), so then people wanted to know why a nomination with 2 supports was closed (because people were complaining when they were left open). I was forever being pestered about why such-and-such either had or hadn't been closed by the deadline on the talk pages here, on my talkpage and on email. It was a fulltime, unpaid, and often thankless job that many didn't seem to get what was involved beyond what they saw on WP:FLC on Wednesday and Saturday evenings. The main reason for me quitting the "job" was the deadlines. It had become, I said when I resigned, "tedious, unenjoyable, stressful and difficult". I would hate for any director to go through that again. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Matthewedwards: That not the reason why the subject is closed. The reason is that I agree with guys each and one of you have really good reason why my idea was terrible. This means forget that I proposed it this crap of an idea.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 09:57, 9 October 2013 (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.

FLC elections

Thank you for participating in the 2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected. Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat.

Everyone is invited to participate. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd that after a community consensus to have an election, it was then cancelled (or postponed, whichever) without any discussion at all. Harrias ^talk 20:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The election page did not provide adequate context for a page that heavily advertized (watchlist notice). Hahc21 (talk · contribs) seems to have dealt with the resulting confusion by pulling the emergency break. Goodraise 20:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I had popped by the election talk page and there were several editors, who didn't know about Featured Lists, complaining about being invited to participate and felt the election page did not properly inform them what the election was for. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize. I will put them back on track this weekend. I just had a very stressful week and decided to give them a pause. I hope they will be back on track on Sunday, October 6. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Elections are back on track. I got free time to take all the concerns and solve them. Happy elections! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • For everyone's who's interested in being a delegate, please feel free to nominate yourself for the position here. We haven't gotten any takers yet, so if you have an interest in shaping the future of the FL process, or just helping out with the grunt work necessary in the promotion/archival of FLCs, come on down and give us a hand. Besides, we can't have an election without any candidates, now can we? :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Will nom myself, just so that we can't say we held an election and nobody came (and, of course, because I believe in the project). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks Crisco. Any more hopefuls want to take a shot at running? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I actually was about to personally ask Crisco to run, since I firmly believe he is a very well-prepared and diligent user, who will make a great delegate :] — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
          • And, like Giants, I encourage everyone who is interested to go and nominate themselves. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Not that I have any favourites, but I would like to know if any of you, PresN, SchroCat, Status, Vensatry, and Harrias, are willing to put your names up in the election. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, now done for me. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, alright, why not. Worst that can happen is that I don't get voted in. Or is it if I do? --PresN 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yay. What about Sahara4u? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I may not be able to dedicate sufficient time to this due to my studies, so I'll leave this for others. Thanks again! Zia Khan 02:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it looks like this election got crowded in a hurry. Thanks to everyone who has volunteered to run. I'd also like to thank all of the editors who have asked intelligent questions of the candidates so far. You've covered all of the areas that I was planning to add questions on, and haven't thrown in any bad ones that I can see or overloaded the candidates like you see at some RFAs. All of us who plan on !voting are in debt to you. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. However, I would like to ping Vensatry and Status to let them know that they have questions yet to answer. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I will finish answering the rest of my questions between today and tomorrow. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hahc21, thank you mentioning my name in connection with this, but as I am extremely busy in real-life at the moment, and am likely to be for foreseeable future, I did not feel that I would be able to serve the community in this way at the moment. Maybe in the future. Harrias ^talk 23:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we supposed to vote for just one candidate or can we place our X by more than one? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The instructions say "voters can vote on their preferred candidates" so I guess you can vote support/oppose on all candidates... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, you can place a vote in as much candidates as you wish. I considered the way you mention, but then it would be a pain to manage later if people don't read these instructions and start voting for everyone anyway. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Any plans to broadcast the vote vie talk page templates or a watchlist notice like the initial announcement? --PresN 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@PresN: You can feel free to add it to the watchlist notice, as was originally planned. A Signpost report already happened, as well as the notice on top of WP:FLC. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed on a possible list

Hi all! I would like to invite editors experienced at the FLC process to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#A list or a regular article? - I recently posted an article at WP:GAN and was notified that it might be a list. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look see. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Right now, the responses seem to be split evenly - could I trouble an editor for an additional opinion?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive?

Is there an archive of discussions of Featured List Candidates? I can't find any on the main page. It would be very useful to have a searchable archive in case one wanted to see if a list had been previously nominated and, if it failed, the reasons why. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the featured lists log serve your purposes? Also, any featured list nominations, if carried out properly, are recorded on each article's talk page. Goodraise 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, keep in mind that the link above only covers promoted FLCs. If you want to see FLCs that failed, archives can be located here for each month. To have easy access to all FLC and FLRC candidate archives, I recommend Template:Featured list log. If you're interested in FLCs/FLRCs for a specific list, it is easiest to follow Goodraise's suggestion and check the talk page of the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Promoted List of municipalities in Ontario requires FLC closure on its talk

A bot did this for the recently promoted List of municipalities in Manitoba, yet a bot still has yet to do the same for List of municipalities in Ontario, which was promoted back in early August. Can someone arrange for the proper closure on the article's talk page? Thanks, Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot has been a bit inconsistent as of late. I will check tonight. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS discussions

Since you guys are the gurus on creating good lists, would it hurt you to chip in at the discussions at WP:TENNIS.. We are discussing the use of flagicons, the duplication of info etc etc... --TIAYN (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

Request for FLC regulars and/or those with active nominations. Please consider reviewing nominations which have not received any attention at all. Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year has been up for almost a month with no reviews, and many of the lists have only received one review despite having been up for a month. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

On a semi-related note just out of curiosity, how long does something have to be up generally before it goes to Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#Older_nominations ? — Cirt (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

When we update FLC, we move candidates that are at least 20 days old down there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see, but they are still okay to comment on until they are removed from the page? — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it's fine to comment on older nominations. And sometimes even preferred! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Okey, sounds good, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of TFL on the main page

A new discussion regarding the expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. The views of all interested parties would be appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page on a passed article still not updated

I completely forgot about this article until today, but a bot has yet to update Talk:List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak to reflect that it passed its FLC over two months ago. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I did this one manually. Rejectwater (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot slow?

I was wondering if the bot is slow? Since I have a withdraw a nomination and the bot has not yet closed the nomination. Further explanation would be appreciated! Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that too in a couple of nominations I've closed recently. - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me see what can be done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't limited to those lists. I just got a message about this FLC, which concluded on October 31 but hasn't been closed by the bot yet. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is the one above, List of municipalities in Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I already asked the bot owner for an update. I already asked another bot owner to prepare a bot to replace VoxelBot in case this gets worse, or doesn't improve. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Hahc21, I am very appreciative of you're hard work.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 03:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Laurel and Hardy filmography and List of Detroit Red Wings general managers were both promoted just over two days ago and neither has received any bot updates. Isn't it usually done within a few hours, or no more than 24? Rejectwater (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily yes, but there is a problem at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rejectwater:, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team was withdraw two weeks ago. The bot has not yet close it. There is huge problem with the bot.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So there's a problem, huh? You don't say. I updated both article pages and talk pages manually. Haven't done the article history template on the Laurel and Hardy talk page yet. Rejectwater (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to go back to old practices and do this manually until I get another bot. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I finished the Laurel and Hardy filmography updates. Rejectwater (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost needs some help

... some assembly required.

Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility

According to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, we're supposed to support screen resolutions down to 1024×768. Lists often contain tables, which are resolution-sensitive. I'm not at 1024×768 but I'm at the functional equivalent because I can't read small text, and I came across a Featured List which was pretty badly formatted and hard to read at that resolution. This is arguably something we can not worry about too much for regular lists, but to be featured a list should look at least reasonably OK at all supported resolutions, I think. Are you guys testing the lists at 1024×768? It'd only take a few seconds. I'd recommend adding a "Passed 1024×768" criteria to the Featured List test, if you don't have it already. Herostratus (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That is already covered by MoS compliance. While I'm all for experienced reviewers looking out for it (in the same way that they do for things such as ensuring that we do not use colour alone to communicate information), I would be against specifically adding something which on the one hand is specific and on the other hand could be interpreted differently by different people. Some people would argue that support for a resolution equates to optimisation for that resolution, for instance. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 04:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Well, then, just a heads-up, I recommend that people remember to do this. As I said, it only takes a few seconds. You certainly don't want to optimize for 1024×768, just see if it's really a mess at that res, and recommend a fix if it's reasonably easy and doesn't much degrade the list at other resolutions. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate (and give a strong hug) to Crisco 1492 and SchroCat for their excellent work as delegates. FLC now runs smoothly. I would also say that I apologize foir not being active as a delegate (I have almost abandoned all my duties thanks to RL) but I will be back soon, since things will be more relaxed in RL soon. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

FLRC concern

I have a concern about the FLRC process that has to be taken care of. I've looked at the logs (October, November, December) and there are articles that have been voted to be removed. Yet, after they were "closed", they weren't processed. Because of that, the lists that were voted for removal still have the bronze star on it. This is something that really needs to be looked at. GamerPro64 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The bot that is supposed to finish closing FLCs and FLRCs hasn't worked for some time. It's an established problem here and at FAC/FAR, although this is the first I've heard of stars not being removed after delisting. There's a conversation going on at User talk:Maralia/FA bot on the topic, and hopefully they can come up with a new bot so that this doesn't remain a pain in the butt. Sometime over the weekend I'll look at the delisted lists and try to process them manually. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It took longer than I wanted it to, but I've finished going through the lists' talk pages. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FLN

I nominated List of currencies in Europe for FL, and, given that it was my first nom, got lots of comments and a couple of opposes here. However, I (feel that I) fixed all the issues that were given, and invited the participants in the discussion back to have another look. However, the only response that I got was for the remaining oppose to be struck. So now I have no current votes, and was wondering what I should do? Thanks, Matty.007 08:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't see that FLC on the main nominations page. That probably means that it's been archived already, but the closure hasn't been fully processed yet. Because the bot that normally finishes closing FLCs stopped working, this has been happening too often at FLC and FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Giants2008. Are moms manually added to that page, as List of currencies in North America isn't there either. Also, on the older FLN talk it says it is still open. Is it closed? Thanks, Matty.007 08:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matty, I've done this one for you as this needs to be done manually in this way Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So is List of currencies in Europe failed? Thanks, Matty.007 08:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly yes, there just wasn't enough support to justify a promotion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I just found it in November fail log. Is there a time limit before re-nomination if I feel all issues have been adressed? Best, Matty.007 08:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no time constraint on re-listing that page, but you should note one of the other FLC rules "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". I suggest leaving the North America list to run for a few weeks to get any major issues sorted out, and then re-run the Europe list. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all the help. Matty.007 09:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments problem

I made this comment at 9:12 this morning on the List of light cruisers of Germany FLC. Parsecboy responded 90 mins later. It's now 15:56 my time and neither comment has appeared at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#List of light cruisers of Germany. Delegates should be wary of closing without checking the nomination page itself, rather than relying on the main FLC page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I hear you, Schro. At the bare minimum, purge the cache before closing (use ?action=purge at the end of the URL). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• It had cleared itself up by the time I got round to trying, but I'll try to remember it for next time! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

• I've archived a couple of nominations that were older than 2 months and nowhere near promotion. There are some FLCs that are short one review from possible promotion. Could someone interested please review

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of light cruisers of Germany/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Alberta/archive1

Shame if the nominators have to go through this again because of the holiday season. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• To prevent having to go through this again for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Alberta/archive1, would it be appropriate to advertise that its FLC review requires one more review at WP:CANTALK? Hwy43 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll swing by shortly to have a look at this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing it SchroCat! Hwy43 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note for delegates: bot issues

As the bot is still problematic, and as this has caused some problems with nominators not realising their noms had been failed or promoted, I've started using this comment on closing a nom. It's shamelessly nicked from FAC (who have a template to do the job) and I'll try and work on a good template we can also use. I suggest we use this to close all closures of noms and reviews going forwards (appropriately tweaked for those nms that fail too). Anyone got any thoughts, suggestions or think there may be a problem with this? - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A little bit of scratching around and I found {{FLCClosed}} which we can start using, although it needs updating first. - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album/archive1 are still open, after months since the last comment. Will the bot archive them, or is there some missing step? Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance awareness day

Recently, I noticed the existence of Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day, which proposes that Main Page content on February 11 have a global surveillance theme to match that of several other sites. Although that is a Tuesday, and TFL does not run on Tuesdays, they might ask to have a list featured on the 10th. It's worth noting for those of us involved in the FL process, in case anyone has any comments or suggestions related to the proposal. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I will say that DYK don't appear to be too keen on the idea, suggesting it might lead to an NPOV violation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Time

My FLC, Natalia Kills discography has clear consensus of passing in its nomination page; why hasn't it been approved yet? Thank you in advance. prism △ 23:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Considering Cirt found several issues with images, and the nomination hasn't been open very long, and there have only been two reviews thusfar, I'd say consensus is still out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Two different FLCs. I left my comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Natalia Kills/archive1. But I supported at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Natalia Kills discography/archive1. Hope that helps clear things up, — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • And why, dare I ask, are two different FLCs by the same editor open at the same time? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That part I don't have the answer for ya, I'm afraid. — Cirt (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't have two different FLCs at the same time. Could you please close the one for List of songs recorded by Natalia Kills? Plus, that one doesn't have consensus, I referred to Natalia Kills discography. prism △ 12:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)