Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 23

Accolades or Awards and nominations received by ???

I noticed the most recently promoted WP:FL in Category:Lists of awards by television series is List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries.

There's also one with the "Accolades..." title at List of accolades received by Miami Vice.

Looking at all of them, intersection of

yields:

  1. List of awards and nominations received by Arrested Development - promoted 11 September 2012.
  2. List of awards and nominations received by The Bill - promoted 8 November 2010.
  3. List of awards and nominations received by Carnivàle - promoted 1 November 2008.
  4. List of awards and nominations received by Lost - promoted 26 March 2008.
  5. List of accolades received by Miami Vice - promoted 11 August 2012.
  6. List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons - promoted 26 October 2007.
  7. List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries - promoted 8 January 2013.

Question:

Which is preferable as the title for these sorts of pages:

  1. List of accolades received by X
  2. List of awards and nominations received by X

Thank you for your time.

— Cirt (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to move an earlier FLC from the "awards and nominations" to "accolades" title, and kept the convention for other ones I've brought since. Miami Vice was the only television list I worked to FL status but there's also plenty of similarly-named lists in the film sections (the entire "Film accolades lists" heading, plus List of accolades received by David Lynch). I prefer "accolades" in general as it's tidier, but also because several of those lists contain entries that aren't just "awards and nominations"—the Lynch list, for example, includes civilian honours and the key to a city, while the Miami Vice list includes music chart entries for the series' soundtracks. In these instances a less specific title serves to group everything together more accurately. GRAPPLE X 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I personally find "awards and nominations" awkward. It really should be "award wins and nominations". But that adds yet another word to the whole string, so I've preferred "accolades" as simpler. I don't see it as informal praise. It could even encompass more than just award wins and nominations. Being listed by the American Film Institute in some capacity is a recognition in itself that's not actually an award. Plus, a quick look at Google News shows that the word is pretty often used in connection with the awards. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
My issue with "Accolades" comes from the dictionary definition: {{gi|noun 1. Any award, honor, or laudatory notice: The play received accolades from the press} from dictionary.com. The OED refers to "fig. A mark of approval or admiration; a bestowal of praise, a plaudit; an acknowledgement of distinction or merit, an award or privilege which recognizes this." To my mind "accolades" is, in itself, a very broad term, and putting press and informal reviews into an "Accolades" article would be entirely justified when based on that definition. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the way we present on Wikipedia, it's clear that it's a list of institutional accolades, especially when the review-compiled "Critical reception" section is always a neighboring section. What about "award wins and nominations" vs. "awards and nominations"? Do you think the latter is sufficient, or that "wins" could be included? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure they always are neighbours of a "critical review" section: certainly not in lists, although it is probably the case in articles. As to award/wins, an award is an award, whereas the nomination is for an award, so I've always read the "award" part as automatically meaning a win (and the "nomination" part as not getting the win). It's a subtle difference, I admit—and others may certainly read it entirely differently to me and disagree! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I humbly think that awards and nominations should be used when the awards received by the subject are given through a selection and nomination process. Accolades sounds more like those awards were nobody is nominated, and the winner is just announced, like Time's Person of the Year. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Thank you for the above feedback, I've read it over and created a new list page at List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Help with additional quality improvement and secondary source research would be appreciated, at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

FLC ready to be closed

Hey, if any of the directors/delegates have a chance, this nomination was withdrawn a while back but never ended up getting closed. I'd put my old FLC director cap back on and do it myself but I don't want to step on anyone's toes! :) Gloss • talk 06:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Four FLC noms?

@Giants2008, Hahc21, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat – Could someone tell me why Caponer has four different FLC nominations open concurrently? Isn't the limit 2 (and only after the first attains enough support)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bloom6132, I must apologize as I am a first time contributor to the Featured list candidates page. I'll await comment from Giants2008, Hahc21, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -- Caponer (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Bloom is right. Caponer, you're going to need to withdraw a couple of your noms. The West Virginia and Washington. D.C. college lists each have two supports, so I suggest keeping those up and withdrawing the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Caponer, you've got your comment you were waiting for. Are you going to be requesting withdrawal now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008, Hahc21, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat, could you please withdrawal List of plantations in West Virginia and List of colleges and universities in Delaware? Thank you for the above guidance, and I apologize for my oversight. Bloom6132, in the future, could you please do me the courtesy of notifying me on my talk page if you ever see me disobeying some rule? I'd like the opportunity to rectify my mistake on my own accord, rather than find out about my wrongdoing on a talk page. With that said, I appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you for all your ongoing contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Caponer – my apologies. I thought wikilinking your name would notify you immediately of the discussion. And I started the discussion on this talkpage so as to put it in one centralized location and to ensure that the FL directors and delegates can "rectify [the] mistake", as they are the only ones who can close an FLC. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

FLC nomination has reached consensus

Hello! Absolutely no hurries, I just thought I should let you guys know that my FLC nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Natalia Kills/archive1 has reached a 6-support consensus of approval and therefore it should be recognized as an FL, I think. Thank you in advance. Prism △ 22:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not that I mind, and I know that you might do this because you want your points for the WikiCup in a timely manner, but some users might see your comment as trying to substitute the delegate's judgement (and job). I'd recommend to approach a single delegate on their talk page and ask if they think the list is ready for promotion, and wait for their reply. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I didn't actually try to fasten things up just for WikiCup points since Round 2 isn't even here yet. Prism △ 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed FL nomination from January

The nomination page for List of Nippon Professional Baseball players to hit for the cycle, which was promoted back in January, still hasn't been closed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Which bot updates the promoted FL talk page?

On the Talk:Audie Murphy honors and awards where it says "After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the ArticleHistory template when the FLC closes." it points to gimme.bot, which hasn't run in over a year. Exactly how do the talk pages get updated after promotion? — Maile (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have the same problem at Talk:List of battleships of Italy, which was archived back in November. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Bummer. Wonder why no working bot exists. Or does it? — Maile (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
VoxelBot is the one that's supposed to be doing the archiving, and it actually did archive my last FLC in January. They probably just fall through the cracks sometime. Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on VoxelBot. There were three other FLCs approved with the Audie Murphy FL, and I guess the bot hasn't been updating FLs that recently. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I just updated the article history for the battleships of Italy list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
So, you're saying you just took care of it manually, I guess. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C.

Since the bot hasn't updated List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C. and its talk page to highlight its new FL status, would it be alright if I manually update? -- Caponer (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed WP:FLC pages

The featured list candidate pages for 66th and 70th Academy Awards have not yet been closed and archived properly. Also the talk header for 70th Academy Awards has not been udpated.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed and withdrawn nominations are still open.

I am writing this just in case someone hasn't noticed yet. I have checked the revision history since October 2013 and have found that the following nominations are still open despite having failed:

These are done
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In addition, the following nominations are still open despite having being withdrawn:

I am unsure as to how to solve this issue since I am not aware of how the process works. Thank you in advance, --190.19.86.67 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@190.19.86.67: looking at the above list, at least one of them, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Saskatchewan/archive1, was a promotion (three days ago) rather than a fail. Hwy43 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Just moved Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Saskatchewan/archive1 as done since it was properly processed by the bot. Hwy43 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I left a message on the Voxelbot page about all the above pages and no-one got back to me about them, and this is becoming a bit of a pain now. Perhaps the @VoxelBot: people—@Vacation9: or @Fox Wilson: could explain why this is happening and what they can do about it (and why they haven't replied to my message on the Bot's talk page since 20 January)! - SchroCat (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Article history
|action1=FLC
|action1date=11:03, 9 August 2012
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Ontario/archive1
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=567797246
|currentstatus=FL}}

I think that while what you have may be correct, it may not be complete. As far as I understand, the bot edits three pages and takes information from three or four. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Damn. I'll continue to space out my harassment then if it continues to be unresolved. ;o) Hwy43 (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why we're getting such radio silence from the bot jockeys on this. I asked for a comment twenty days ago and absolutely nothing from them, not even a "we know it's a problem and we're looking into it". Even that would have put people's minds at rest that it's being looked into. - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Know what? We don't need any damn bots. I am going to close 'em all and update 'em all now. After all, that's our job too ;) — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 03:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hahc21, Can you draw up a set of steps to take that covers all the bots work? I'll be happy to chip in and cover some of these if I knew what to do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat: Sure. An easy-to-follow procedure is at User:Hahc21/FL. I use it myself when I have to do manual closes. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 13:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
With Hahc21 confirming the procedure, I manually closed the article history at Talk:List of municipalities in Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
@SchroCat: and others, I really apologize for not responding sooner -- I've been really bad at checking email/my talk page/notifications recently. @Vacation9: and I are aware of the issue -- I've pinged Vacation9 several times on IRC with no response (I didn't write that part of the bot, and honestly, the code looks pretty bad :| ). In my opinion, the best solution is to have someone else with more time write up a replacement bot for the task, as I'm not sure _how_ to maintain the code for this task, and Vacation9 seems to be fairly quiet regarding this. Sorry for not responding sooner. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 19:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my turn to apologise for being slow to respond now! Thanks for your efforts, and hope we can sort something out soon. I'll start manually closing some of these as soon as I can. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Request the directors to close this nomination which was promoted a month before. —Vensatry (Ping) 16:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about this guys - I just noticed this. I'm not interested in maintaining VoxelBot any more as I don't have the time to do so. Sorry to leave you hanging but there's nothing I can do at the moment. Vacation9 02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, this FLC nomination was promoted and closed back in November, but the bot never updated the list's talk page. I'd do it manually but I don't know what all needs to be changed with the FLC template and the article history. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot status?

Are the bot(s) which archive FLCs down indefinitely? The FLCs closed with these edits are yet to be archived. Adabow (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are down. By now, I am manually closing the FLCs every 15th and 30th of the month. → Call me Hahc21 04:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards, which relates to a number of FLs past, current and future. Comments are welcome there. – SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-review

I am considering bringing Leader of Alderney to FL status but I would like the opinion of some of the FL regulars on if it is worth bringing it in or if it needs more work on it because I don't want to waste other people's time on nominating it if it isn't ready. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If people are willing to do "pre-reviews" would anyone take a look at List of National Trust properties in Somerset & give any comments about what else is needed before nomination?— Rod talk 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

New operator needed for VeblenBot and PeerReviewBot

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_operator_needed_for_VeblenBot_and_PeerReviewBot to keep the conversation in one place.

CBM implemented and ran VeblenBot and PeerReviewBot, but is retiring from Wikipedia. I am in occasional email contact with CBM who wrote:

"It would be a good idea to find a different person to run the bot jobs. With the WMF Tools setup, I can actually just hand them the entire bot as a turnkey, they would not need to re-implement it. If you can find someone, please ask them to email me (and you email me) and I will be able to communicate with them that way."

VeblenBot updates Peer Review, Good Article Nominations, Featured List Candidates, and Featured Article Candidates, (see here) so I am asking at all those places. I already asked at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, but got no responses there.

If you are interested in taking over these bots please reply here. They are usually pretty trouble free. My email and CBM's email are both enabled.

I do the monthly PR bot maintenance (making the files and categories) and that includes adding the new PR category each month on the VeblenBot account - I would be glad to keep doing that (and give details on email).

Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My question: do signatures including links to nominations irrevocably taint a nomination, and as such should we automatically fail the Marvel Cinematic Universe list? I'm tempted to say yes, but as the list already has a consensus, and it's been open for two months, I think it best and fairest to the nominators if this is not a unilateral decision. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I want to open this comment with complete transparency - I was heavily involved with the creation of the nominated page, and was listed as one of the nominators when the page was nominated. That said, I believe that failing the nomination on this basis would be the wrong way to approach this. The user in question seems to have acted in good faith, adding a neutral message to their signature without realizing some would find it inappropriate, and removing it as soon as they were informed the consensus concluded it was. The users involved in the FLC all seem to have acted in good faith as well, with a number of comments that led to the improvement of the page and seemingly no comments without first thoroughly analyzing the article. Failing the nomination on this basis seems like it's punishing an editor for a simple mistake, rather than encouraging further good faith editing. I see that WP:CANVASSING has since been edited to clarify why consensus dictated that this was inappropriate, so hopefully incidents like this don't occur in the future. But should they, we'll have something concrete to point to. -Fandraltastic (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
While I find the links misguided, I do think that the changes to the signature were initially undertaken in good faith. The fact that the effect has subsequently been seen as canvassing/spamming is unfortunate. Moving forward in terms of this particular nomination, I find myself in two minds about this. Although there is an argument for saying the nom is tainted, there is the practical side of the matter: this has been around for long enough and has sufficient supports to pass. The work is worthy of passing as it stands, and if it is turned down for a technicality (albeit one that started on a good faith footing) then it would return in two weeks and pick up the same level of support fairly quickly (and possibly from exactly the same people, who could be neutrally notified of the relisting). We therefore could be back with the same level of support from the same individuals, with the article unchanged from where it stands, but a month or two down the line. I'm not sure the delay would be beneficial to the article, which I think is the most important element here. It's a close call, but I'd pass as it stands, as long as the 'signature issue' doesn't raise its head again! - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that the article, and the nomination, should noy pay for the mistakes done by the nominator. Of course, if this persists, we may have to use some extraordinary measure. → Call me Hahc21 17:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco has promoted the list, and I agree with his decision to basically let Favre1fan off with a warning. I'd be more upset about the link if it was specifically asking for supports, but it was only requesting reviews. With the current lack of reviewers at all content processes, I can understand the inclination to drum up activity, even if I personally find the method distasteful. If it happens again we should not be so generous, but the list did gain enough support from reviewers and I agree with those who say the list itself would have been punished for the nominator's mistake. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It's aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive

Fellow Igors, look. We have life. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It still hasn't archived a bunch of lists passed in April. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like a few months from early in 2014 have some unclosed FLRCs as well. Still, this is good news for the content processes. That was a real pain for us. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment

Miley Cyrus discography is a featured list now but i feel it should be at least reassessed if not removed as a featured list. There is a discussion about merging Hannah Montana discography with it. Thus the article is not stable and i support that Hannah Montana discography should be merged. Presently the Miley Cyrus discography also mentions some of the work as hannah montana. So either they should be separate completely or merged. Moreover you see 4 references that don't work due to incorrect use of reference names and at the top there is a tag that suggests a problem with the length of the article lead. In my opinion till these issues are not solve this article should not be rated as a featured list because these are supposed to be free of such issues. Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Legobot issues

Legobot is, according to SchroCat, "only acting intermittently." This is causing all of the recently promoted FLCs to remain open (including the one I specifically mentioned that has now been promoted for a week). He suggested that I come here and ask if someone else could work on these. If you do, thank you in advance! I know those that worked on the FLCs will greatly appreciate it. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying FLC consensus

@Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat – For the purposes of closure/promoting, my current FLC nom – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game/archive1 – has 3 support votes and 1 neutral at the moment. I don't usually do this, but this particular nom is becoming quite cluttered with the votes being buried within the comments. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't think the nom is that cluttered. At least all of the supports are bolded and we can see them. There are some noms where supports are puts in italics or not highlighted at all, which makes keeping track of reviews a pain. In any event, there is much less commentary than at the typical FAC, and it isn't the largest FLC in history. Be patient and I'm sure this will get promoted soon, since it's gained the amount of backing traditionally required for promotion. It just depends on when the next round of closures will be at this point. Sadly, I can't do anything tomorrow because of other obligations—namely the stimulating six-hour driving class I have scheduled. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

General note

I want to remind authors to review nominated lists as a de facto exchange for their input on your own. FLC has stagnated; if you can spare one review, and the author of the list you reviewed can return the favor, the process will work as intended. Otherwise, the featured list process will grind to a halt. If you have the time to nominate a list, take the time for a review. Don't be arrogant. Seattle (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's important at this point to note that FLC doesn't have a mandatory "quid pro quo" review requirement like DYK does, and I wouldn't want to see one instituted given the issues that have made it through articles at that process. If QPQ was mandated here, I would resign as director on the spot because I don't want a process growing in respect to be turned into a venue where support votes are traded without real reviews behind them. Some of the reviews at DYK are so soft that any onlooker would know an editor didn't really look at the list. I know the FL process is slow right now, but so are the other content review processes. I think the other closers will agree with me that we can give more time for FLCs to reach a consensus in this environment, especially if the number of noms stays steady. There are other things you can do: ask for input at relevant WikiProjects, or find a trusted reviewer and request a look. And if you nominate a list, please consider reviewing something without asking for QPQ. It makes you more in-tune with what current FL standards are (at least in my experience), and you might end up drawing a return review anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want a formal QPC either, but if you want a review for your prospective list, try reviewing others. I wouldn't support a mandated review system for the reasons you point out; but the de facto system, strictly regarding reviews should be a kind of unspoken, honest QPC. Seattle (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Coords and grid refs

I have shown grid refs on List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London and an editor has pointed out at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London/archive1 that coords would be better. It will be a big job changing 142 grid refs manually. Does anyone know whether there is a bot or other way of making this easier? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor has kindly assisted with this, and another editor has suggested I should show both coords and grid refs. I am not sure about this. I already have 9 columns. Would adding another make it even more difficult to read on small screens? Or would it be a good idea to have both in the same column? Any advice appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

FLCs needing (formal) closure

The following FLCs are not listed at WP:FLC, but technically remain open and are listed at WP:FLCL. The lists' talk pages need updating from FLC to FL.

Promoted, but bot hasn't gone through. These are listed at WP:FL already.

Unsuccessful, but bot hasn't gone through

No closure at all

I am willing to have a go at the first two types. I'm guessing it just requires some sort of archive template on the FLC page, and replacing {{featured list candidates}} with {{ArticleHistory}} on the article's talk page, yes? Adabow (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The procedure for manually closing FLCs is detailed at User:Hahc21/FL. Thanks for your willingness to do this dirty work. It's very unappealing, but necessary as long as the bot is giving us trouble. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Giants2008, Hahc21, NapHit, Crisco 1492, and SchroCat: if you could close these last few, I'd be happy to archive them. Adabow (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Adabow, many thanks for crunching through all these. I've closed down the final six: there was nothing contentious in doing so for any of them, none had come close to any consensus for support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, all those listed here are done. I'll keep an eye on future closures. Is there any progress re the bot getting up and running again? Adabow (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also needing closure: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Discography of Audie Murphy/archive1 (part of Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Audie_Murphy) -- Zanimum (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Adabow, Are you able to close off the promoted lists below, as well as the Audie Murphy one above? >

Many thanks for any help you can provide! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a whack at it and closed Gravity. You can tell me if I did it correctly, not having done it before. I've wanted Audie Murphy closed, but since that's mine I assume closing it would be a conflict of some sort. I didn't close Alastair Sim, because it has no closing comment and otherwise does not say it was promoted. Or did I just miss something there? — Maile (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have now closed all but the Alastair Sim template, for the reason listed above. Please note whoever closes Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Discography of Audie Murphy/archive1, that in order to pass FL, the article was moved to List of songs written by Audie Murphy before it was promoted. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Maile66, I've already pointed out that is has been closed, which is why it appears in "The closure log" at the top of the page. This is Crisco's promotion of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
SchroCat, Done. I didn't see your note above fast enough. But it's taken care of now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Maile66, Many thanks, both for "my" one, and all the others: it's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Glad to help. Some please close out Audie Murphy for me. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Maile66: Closed the Audie Murphy FLC. Thanks for closing Gravity's and the other FLCs. It is much appreciated! Cowlibob (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Bringing this thread back from the dead again as I noticed that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Harbhajan Singh/archive2, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pakistan Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Frozen (2013 film)/archive1 haven't been properly closed. GamerPro64 00:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to clear up the backlog and have so far finished 3 promotions and 4 archiving/not promoted. I would've done these as well but since I've voted in two of them and nominated the other I didn't feel it would be appropriate. Cowlibob (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Second nom or not

Hello! I want to nominate a second page but "users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" and as per WP:FLC I have addressed all the issues raised in the first FLC and also have gained a support. What should I do. Should I wait until its closure or should I go ahead with the second nom. Someone please tell, thanks. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You're OK for the second nom, I think: two sets of comments and one support is sufficient for me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Need for description/notes column

In the review of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset the comment was made "shouldn't it have a column for a brief description?". Is this actually a requirement as I can't see it in the FL criteria? I would be happy to add it if required and in some case there would be quite a lot of text, in others most of the relevant information available (sometimes about sites from pre-history) is already given in the other columns in the table.

Part of this question is about ensuring I have the right format as I'm hoping to use it on several other lists (all linked from Scheduled Monuments in Somerset) some of which have 3 or 4 times as many entries as the current nomination and I am aware of discussions elsewhere about the length of lists and display particularly on mobile or other small screen devices.

As an aside, once this question is resolved, is it acceptable to have multiple FL nominations, at the same time, if they all have a common format?— Rod talk 08:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rod, I'm not sure we would necessarily have so prescriptive a requirement, as circumstances are different for most lists that come through the process. What is a requirement in the FL Criteria is that the list is comprehensive, both in the items to be included and "it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items" (3a) That's a subjective judgement for you and the reviewers to make on a case by case basis. It's not a clear cut answer, but the decision on levels of information to include is never a clear one.
As to the multiple FLCs, I am afraid we have to stick to the rule of "1 plus 1", i.e. "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". It guarantees fairness for all in ensuring there are not too many articles from one user that bloat the list of nominations, which mean that others have less chance of having their lists reviewed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

This has probably been asked a lot before, but I can't see it written anywhere on the noms page and I'm new to this whole process, so I though I would ask. Basically, what is considered "consensus" on here? I know that it is quite subjective, but I was just wondering how many supports are usually considered the benchmark for promotion when all comments/queries have been addressed. Many thanks --Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

Hi Noswall59, There are no hard-and-fast rules to cover this, but my own benchmark is a minimum of three supports. That doesn't necessarily guarantee promotion for me, as I take a few other factors into account. I also look over the list myself to see if those reviews that have taken place have been rigorous enough to pick up on anything I can find. Other delegates may have a slightly different modus operandi to me, but probably not too much different. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat, that does clarify things for me. I had thought it might be something along those lines, but I was interested to know how it all worked. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC).

National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor needs closure

I think that the FLC National Film Award for Best Supporting Actor needs to be closed as it's been almost two months and all the comments or issues raised in the FLC has been solved so I think further delaying it is just waste of time. Just a thought, regards. FrB.TG --85.167.232.112 (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Time limit?

I notice that my nomination for List of public art in the City of Westminster was closed two months to the date of the nomination. Is this the usual practice? It's unfortunate as I had just got hold of a book with which address one of the objections (specifically, to replace a broken reference not picked up by the Checklinks tool). Obviously, I didn't expect the review to go on indefinitely, but it is unfortunate that there is no mention at the top of the page of the specific time frame within which one must secure consensus in favour of promotion. Ham (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ham, There isn't a timeframe set in stone, but in practice, nominations without enough support after approximately two months are archived. Sometimes, if there are two supports, then exceptions are made, but this article had none. Once you've added the new information from the additional source, please feel free to re-nominate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi SchroCat. Even a mention that it's approximately two months might be a good idea‍—‌it would give us newbies to the process an idea of what to expect. It'll be some time before I re-nominate as I have competing priorities, and will probably add list row templates to the list and perhaps even change its scope to make FL status more achieveable. Cheers, Ham (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it's a really flexible timeframe, depending on how things are moving. If you read the blurb at the top of the nom page, it refers to a ten-day window (which was sort of optimistic for the whole process, but wasn't too far away at some point). What we have now isn't a hard and fast rule: it's my personal guideline to closing. I suspect the other delegates would think it about right, but they may not even have a time frame in their own mind, they'll just know when it's time to close. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reviewers

I think my last many FLCs never got through due to the lack of any reviewers. Does anybody have some brainstorming ideas how to encourage reviewers? I don't think FAC has this problem anywhere near the level here. Nergaal (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Publicising nominations

I have nominated List of How I Met Your Mother characters for FL, because the previous nomination only received one support vote. The article is very long and I can certainly understand why people would not want to review it, especially without knowledge of the show. I wouldn't want people to vote without thoroughly reading the article and thinking about whether it is up to scratch.

But I fear the second nomination will go the same way as the first, as not a single person has commented in nearly a month. So I want to try and do some sort of advertising, but without canvassing. How should I do this? For instance, there are two users that gave comments to a peer review and FL nom of the article: would it be okay to post messages on their user talks asking them (neutrally and politely) if they would consider commenting? (Both users have notes on their user pages saying they are busy in real life, but I'd still like to know — it might be useful to know for future nominations, at least.)

Or, would it be okay to post something like this on my user page:

This user has nominated List of How I Met Your Mother characters for featured list status. Comments on the nomination — including Oppose votes containing ways to improve the article — would be really appreciated. Please read through the article and carefully consider featured list criteria before voting.

Or is there any other platform for advertising the nomination? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 18:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bilorv:You could post neutrally-worded-notices to the bottom of your own user talk page and to WikiProject talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to the topic of the article, that's totally fine. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Closure

@FLC delegates: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Asia Cup centuries/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ICC Champions Trophy centuries/archive1, both promoted long ago are yet to be closed. —Vensatry (ping) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Closed 'em manually! --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. 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, more than fifty 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! Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding a second nomination

I note in the instructions "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" and recognise why this is necessary. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 now has three supports, no opposes and I believe all comments have been "substantially" addressed. Could the featured list director or delegate indicate whether it would be OK to add another nomination which uses the same format etc?— Rod talk 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your situation is exactly why multiple nominations are permitted under limited circumstances, as we don't want excessive bottlenecks for editors whose lists go through FLC quickly. Consider permission for a second FLC granted, and best of luck with both of your nominations. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - done. List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset is the third in a series of seven; however the others are not ready for FLC (yet).— Rod talk 17:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The South Somerset list now has three supports, no opposes and I believe all comments have been addressed. Can I nominate another one in the series?— Rod talk 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. DO it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset now nominated.— Rod talk 10:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bot trouble?

Just curious. Why is the bot striking out Academy Award for Best Actor from the list of FLs here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've asked the question here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Column widths in table layout

A discussion has arisen at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset/archive1 about a table layout issue with different screen sizes which may be an issue for other FLCs, and we thought editors here may be able to comment. Both Dr. Blofeld and Keith D highlighted an issue with the width of the "Notes" column on List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset, suggesting the autoformatting made the column very narrow causing problems when there is a significant amount of text in this column. Setting columns widths was attempted and Pigsonthewing was asked for advice in case it was related to the Template:EH listed building header which is used in the list. The MOS:Tables and Help:Table don't seem to help.

South Somerset was the third in a series of seven planned FLC submissions (previous: List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset and List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane, current: List of Scheduled Monuments in North Somerset, future (but not fully developed yet and without "Notes" showing) List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset and List of Scheduled Monuments in Mendip) I'd appreciate any advice or suggestions to resolve this using a variety of screen widths, browsers, column settings etc.— Rod talk 21:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be good to have a standard for monument/building lists. I tried a range of browsers and compared with my 28 inch widescreen and smaller 15 inch screen and there's a big range in how it looks without being set. On my 15 inch screen the columns looked daft, barely one or two words per line and stretched down the page. Something definitely needs to be agreed upon to ensure that on most browsers and screen sizes this problem is avoided as much as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It does look bad, even on 1280px wide. In this case, my suggestion would be to move the Notes column to a separate row. This is routinely done in TV episode lists, where the summaries occupy their own row so they don't ruin the column flow on smaller screens. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I could move the notes onto a new table row however this would defeat the object of using Template:EH listed building header and Template:EH listed building row, which I was strongly advised to use for these and is used extensively on lists of listed buildings. It has various advantages in terms of portability and links between en.wikipedia and commons.— Rod talk 07:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The Template:EH listed building row simplifies the issue considerably- it allows the content provider to do what they are good at- providing content and puts the changing of screen rendering firmly back within one template.
I am approaching a similar problem of trying get 2000+ articles to use the LEN instead of the Legacy Database UIDs so I have glanced at some of this lists. I have used my own format to provide lists of listed/non listed buildings, {{TMtr}} the aim being to gather data in the notes section that can be eventually floated off as a separate article (the TMtr can be c&p into Infobox mill building)- Here I use the template to write multiline notes section List of mills in Lancashire under other fields. I haven't looked at the result on tablets or phones but it is internally consistent. In Grade I listed buildings in Lancashire we start to see the breakup- it is not internally consistent or even readable (illustrating the the problem above).
I am working on a further template that could become related- {{lbe}} that attempts to assist novice wikipedians who are established heritage professional with a simple way of using the LEN to provide links, references and categories for stub articles- this may or may not be of relevance if we re-jig all the UK heritage/ parks and gardens/ ancient monument lists. Comments and constructive changes always welcome.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
{{lbe}} looks useful as a way of doing the references to nhle numbers but {{TMtr}} has more potential for handling the layout but it doesn't link with nhle numbers which is vital for listed buildings, ancient monuments etc (and as a result wouldn't work with User:Dudemanfellabra/AddCommonsCatLinks which is a really useful tool for adding pics etc - it might be worth talking to that tools creator). Rather than trying to make the mills one work for listed buildings etc would there be any mileage in trying to make Template:EH listed building row put the notes on the next line? I know so little about template functions (and I don't even know what LEN stands for) I'm a bit out of my depth here.— Rod talk 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
nhle- LEN basically the same thing. The digital team at English Heritage will be getting back to me shortly to see how we can cooperate- and then I can say more. It is trivial to add a field to {{TMtr}} to show the reference- but silly to do so before we have some EH input. I am keen to gather the opinions of other editors before making any changes. To broaden it a bit- the markup process is exciting for us coding-bunnies but we need to refocus on the needs of the naive editor and produce a systekm that is easy to learn and easy to teach- please keep those comments coming.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest contact with Pigsonthewing who has forgotten more about this sort of thing than I will ever know. It may also be worth making contact with some of the people who do code at Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites who agreed international colour schemes for heritage categories etc and made them work in related infoboxes etc. (I most admit I didn't understand some of the code they produced either and I would have to search five years of archives back to discussions in 2009 (eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites/Archive 1#Listed buildings in the United Kingdom). Would considering National Register of Historic Places and similar around the world be part of your remit? It might also be worth talking to the crew at Wiki Loves Monuments UK (who developed Template:EH listed building row etc to enable standardised list creation & automated upload to commons with nhle tags during photography competitions, after a download of an (error prone) spreadsheet with all the data about GI and GII* listed buildings in England (and other organisations for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland)) and some of the people at Wikimedia UK Cultural partnerships as other "national collections" may be in similar situations. I would also get my wrists slapped for not mentioning WikiData integration (and I don't understand how that works either).— Rod talk 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How long to wait?

List of Governors of Iowa was failed mainly because I was unable to respond in a timely fashion to needed edits. I don't want it to seem like I'm spamming my article because it failed, but on the other hand it failed for reasons that are being resolved; how long should I wait before renominating it? I'm working on the needed changes now. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A slight correction, Golbez: it was archived because it received no support for promotion after two months. In terms of a relishing, a general rule is two weeks after closing, which should give you enough time to deal with any outstanding comments from the first nomination. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A call for WP:TFLS blurbs

In the past week or so, our leading writer of blurbs that have been featured on TFL has sadly retired from the project. If anyone wants to contribute some occasional blurbs so that the TFL process can continue running smoothly, we would all appreciate it. Otherwise, either myself or one of the FL delegates will have to start writing them, and my busy real-life work season runs from February to April, so I'd appreciate any help the community can provide. Also, there's the possibility that I might start running six sports TFLs a month just to mess with everybody. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I saw Neelix is awol at the moment, which is why I stuck a couple of "my" FLs up there to keep the flow going. I'll try and nom a few more on a more regular basis, but is there merit in following what Bencherlite did for a spell: leaving a templated congratulations note on the talk pages of nominators of recently promoted FLs, suggesting that they may wish to put the newly promoted article on the front page? If it shakes one or two more requests a month it would certainly be a beneficial step. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, Given this, it may well be that Neelix will return in February, which would be the ideal scenario, but yes, let's put some contingecy plans in place. I can sympathise with Crisco's position, given some of the needlessly pointy comments aimed in his direction when the TFA co-ordinators were being suggested, so it looks like it's down to thee and me, Giants. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Support?

Is it possible for an FLC, which meets the criteria but has no support, to be promoted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:464C:C401:0:1071:BE83:9FC0:BB8A (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Short answer, no. All featured content needs to be reviewed by a number of people who support it before it passes, regardless of how "perfect" the page is. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mismatch of FL count

The category "featured lists" contains 2777 pages [[20]] but the count says 2772 FLs over at Featured lists [[21]]. What explains the discrepancy? Cowlibob (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably because the counter is wrong. I've dropped the whole lot into excel and stripped out the rubbish and it comes to 2,776. The missing one on the cats could be the page that was promoted recently that hasn't gone through (or one from previously where the bot fell over...) - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting. Hopefully it sorts it self out. Went through some of the old years and corrected some FLs that were labelled as former ones. Cowlibob (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Closure

I think these lists need to be closed:

Question

Is an incomplete list of awards and nominations of a person is acceptable to be an FL. As far as I know, yes, it is but I wanna confirm. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of (Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviewers?

I think I am way above 5 noms in the last 1-2 years that received unnecessary amount of reviewers. Do things still pass because most the reviewers still here pretty much check only the same type of list (i.e. the 100th cricket/baseball/awards list)? I would have guessed that at some point reviewers would take a stab at some not-again-the-same-thing lists. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines on repeating links in sortable lists? This has come up in the FLC review for List of public art in the City of Westminster where, for instance, Edwin Lutyens's name is linked in for his first appearance on the list, as the designer of the Civil Service Rifles War Memorial, but not for other works of his like the Cenotaph in Whitehall, which is hundreds of items later. It's therefore necessary to do a Ctrl+F in order to find the wikilink much of the time. In cases like this should the name be linked every time, or once per section, or should the status quo continue? Ham II (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've always understood that links should be repeated every time in a sortable table, because the 'first' occasion might change. Harrias talk 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I believe you gave me some advice on this point a little while ago. Tim riley talk 13:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Harrias has given the right advice here: as the first occurrence changes with the re-sorting of the column, the links should be repeated. (Which also avoids the inconsistency of only having three or four links repeated if you work out what would be first with each individual sort). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteering to review

I have not long to go on my long-term project (The Boat Race annual articles, all 161 of them) so I have more time to dedicate to reviewing. If anyone would like me to review a list, please let me know on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. (P.S. By all means reciprocate by reviewing one of the 13 Boat Race articles currently at WP:GAN!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do some for free. Wow, standards, people, standards!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Additional FL delegate proposal

Resounding consensus to instate PresN as a delegate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

At the 2013 FLC elections two editors—Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and SchroCat (talk · contribs)—were appointed to become FL delegates. They joined the FL director Giants2008 (talk · contribs), and two editors Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and NapHit (talk · contribs), albeit with the long-term unavailability of NapHit. Since then, Hahc21 has also ceased to act as a delegate, and those overseeing FLs—their promotion, delisting, and appearance on the front page—have been reduced to three. It is now time to consider adding another delegate to bring the number back to four.

In the 2013 election the third placed candidate, with ten supporting votes and no opposes was PresN (talk · contribs), and it is proposed that PresN is promoted to the role of FL delegate.

Timescale: All comments are invited on this proposal, which will run until 23:59, 26 April 2015, UTC. – SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreement: If this RfC passes, I am willing to work as an FLC delegate. --PresN 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions Not much to say here, I think PresN (talk · contribs) is a pretty solid candidate, although I would have three questions:
  1. Can you confirm you are still interested in becoming a delegate?
  2. In the previous election, you were asked what three things you would change; one of your points was "that nominations take so long to get finished ... due to lack of reviewers of course". I think that this is even more of a problem now than it was then. Do you have any further ideas of how we can start to address this problem?
  3. Looking at my own FLCs lately, they suffer from not getting quality reviews, to be honest, they have passed more easily than they should have; are you still in favour of delegates being able to take a more active role in reviewing articles? Harrias talk 11:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Answers
  1. I am still interested in becoming a delegate; SchroCat and Crisco 1492 verified that with me before posting.
  2. I haven't come up with a proposal beyond what I had in that election- some sort of talk-page notification to people when their FLCs pass, or when they are near the bottom of the queue without enough reviews, letting them know that there are x many FLCs that need reviews and that if they review people are likely to review back. I've also tried doing the proactive review notices- reviewing someone else's FLC, and leaving a note that they might review mine back; I've gotten a 50% success rate with that, but more importantly, I've seen a few other reviewers start to do that as well. I do feel like reminders and mild guilt trips are much more successful than a firm QPQ system, which I think leads to shoddy checkbox reviews.
  3. Connecting this question to the last, one of the reasons that SchroCat and Crisco asked me to be a delegate is that there are times that they get in and review something, only to have to keep the other one out of it so that they don't run out of promoters. Simply having extra delegates frees up the others to be able to do more reviews without trapping themselves. So, yes, I guess, is that answer to your question. --PresN 15:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, I haven't responded to your comments yet because I don't want to do it unless I have the time to also look back at your nomination! --PresN 15:43, 16 April 2015 (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.

I was intending to nominate List of scheduled monuments in Mendip here soon (the final of seven lists of Scheduled monuments in Somerset), however an issue has been raised on the talk page on which I'd appreciate some advice. It has been pointed out that this list, in common with the previous six (and I believe some other lists), has the same wikilink on the same row in both type and notes columns (eg Earthworks, Round barrow or Bowl barrow). I am trying to keep the format as similar as possible between all the lists for consistency so I don't want to remove them and then have to put them back during the review. Should I remove them from this list (and the other six!) before nominating?— Rod talk 19:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed the duplicate "type" wikilinks where they were repeated in the description, so please ignore the question above, unless some further discussion would be useful for other list nominations.— Rod talk 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad supports

Okay, as promised here, I just want to make a quick mention that standards here seem to be lower than I can ever recall. Many candidates receive a support vote without the voter making any comparison with our criteria. It seems evident that a few editors are helping each other out without upholding our standards. I will do my best to ensure these lists have extra scrutiny. In the meantime I hope the rest of the community can help out too and review some of these candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm highly offended that you are accusing me and others of "helping each other out." I'd really like to see your evidence of this (as it is clearly speculation on your part) in order to eradicate your use of WP:BADFAITH.  — ₳aron 21:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You can be as offended as you like, it's not relevant. The quality of the review of the list I linked is key, so many supports for such a poor list. Thankfully it's improved sufficiently because other reviewers have applied the criteria to it. It's nothing to do with bad faith, more to do with lack of competence for some reviewers who supported a list which was abundantly below the standards we seek to be "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you see that's where you're wrong. It's completely relevant, because you're accusing me and others of doing something without any kind of evidence what-so-ever. Please give me the evidence, such as me asking editors to support, and then you may have a valid case. That is a very dangerous game to play. Furthermore, your edit summary is another example of your not assuming good faith.  — ₳aron 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No you're right, I don't assume good faith when many lists here have "support" from the get-go yet six weeks later there are massive issues with them. Either the reviewers lack the ability to review lists or something else is going on. I will make sure that every single list of this nature is reviewed properly from now on. Like the Ariana Grande list, if people were happy to support back in late-March, we have a massive problem with our process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not evidence of "helping each other out". I didn't ask anyone to comment or support. They came of their own accord, commented, and voted. So I'm yet to see a valid case put forward by yourself of this "helping each other out" accusation.  — ₳aron 21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall suggesting you asked for it. But the shockingly low standards of some reviewers here needs closer examination, particularly when they themselves nominate lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've said in each reply here to you... but whatever. You're clearly choosing to ignore because you can't supply it.  — ₳aron 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've already provided one example of a list review where supports where given to a way substandard list. That you benefitted from it is another matter. Enough is enough, time to start setting the standard back up a notch or three. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999, @The Rambling Man: Speaking only for myself as a (new) FLC delegate, when I see several supports with little comment besides "great job" followed by one or more lengthy reviews (opposing or not), I'm not inclined to ascribe much weight to the supports. It does give the impression that the reviewers did not review closely. I'm not going to go so far as to accuse anyone of a formal support trading system or anything; while it certainly can give off that impression it's more likely to me that the other supporters don't realize that they aren't helping out. I would instead ask that you remind other editors at the music wikiproject that bare supports on a list that others easily find (fixable!) issues with aren't really helpful; they need to review the list more deeply. WP:VG used to have a similar problem at FAC- no one would be asking for easy supports, but other editors didn't realize that they weren't actually being helpful by giving a cheap review. It's easy to fix, and not the end of the world. The Rambling Man is heavily invested in the FLC process; he's just trying to point out a problem, not attack you (Aaron) directly. --PresN 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. The last thing our process needs is a QPQ system (especially an "unwritten" one), much like DYK, where oftentimes crap can pass to the main page. I'm trying hard to uphold the standards we've worked for years to maintain. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Competent reviewers seem to be put off song and discography lists in a process similar to adverse selection, whereby bad reviewers are drawn because good reviewers, due to a dislike of the topic or the editors involved, avoid the topic and don't invest their time. I don't know a solution, but that's the problem. Seattle (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well there's certainly a core of FLC contributors who assist one another with their female singer lists right now. I am dedicated to making sure all the early supports aren't just accepted at face value. A part of the solution is to make sure you (Seattle) and others, if they have the time and energy, review these lists objectively. In the past few weeks I've found countless issues with lists that have overwhelming support from the in-group. To help the FL directors and delegates, we need to keep making our reviews and opinions as open and thorough and loud as possible to prevent these easy passes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with TRM. Sometime back, in one of the nominations, a reviewer had offered their support without even knowing that it was an FLC. Of late, a new breed of reviewers (who don't even have an idea about our criteria) have increased participation over the process. I see some not-so-good lists getting overwhelming supports with in a few days after nomination. Extra scrutiny, in some form, is badly needed here. —Vensatry (ping) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. I had some time on my hands so I just checked out the most likely to be promoted FLC, namely List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011. It was nominated by User:HĐ on 6 May and was supported without any kind of comment six hours later by a user with over 12,000 edits. Next, eleven minutes later, we saw a support from User:Listmeister who could only find the fact it was a 2011 list an issue. Worst of all, less than six hours after that, i.e. less than twelve hours after the nomination listed, we had an administrator, User:Carioca, who has been editing longer than me, giving an unqualified support to the list. Since then, we see critical reviews from User:Cowlibob and User:A Thousand Doors, neither of whom are happy with this situation. Then I reviewed the list. Sub-standard doesn't quite cover it. About time we started to disqualify these supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I am not trying "to help anyone out" here. It was my first time voting regarding this and I might have been a bit too quick in giving my support without having a thorough understanding of the process. But it was not in any "bad faith". I primarily only paid attention to the rankings have been well-sourced. I will carefully review the whole process next time if I ever do it again. Thank you very much.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: since so many of these nomination issues seem to involve music-related lists, I've left (what I hope is) a reasonable statement of the issue and request that reviewers look a little more in depth before supporting at WT:ALBUM, WT:SONGS, and WT:WPMU. Turns out WP:MUSIC is the shorthand for the notability guidelines, and not the parent music project for some reason? --PresN 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobel laureates of India

Can I demand a bit more reviews and comments of this FLC? Thanks..-The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't demand it, request or ask for it perhaps. But it's on my list. I'll see what I can do later tonight. Finally, what is Benison? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Benison is an archaic word for "a blessing". Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cowlibob: He got his reply in his talk page. It meant benediction, a blessing, above all, its my real life name. -The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORDmy strength 08:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

For the first time since March 10, 2014, the Wikipedia:Today's featured list/Statistics page and archives are up to date! This will be of great interest to... basically no one, but I put enough effort into it over the past month that I thought I should announce it. Look in fascination at such wonders as... the page views that most lists get vs. the top well-timed ones! That time that 7 lists' nominators in a row had names ending in numbers! That time 5 lists in a row had titles that didn't start with "List of"! The 3 times we've had TFLs without a picture! All very, very interesting. Of course. --PresN 01:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, that must have taken ages. Thanks for doing it. We're not doing particularly well at TFL in terms of views. Apart from the 40k for the Oscars list on the day of Oscars, only two others with 10k. The TFL's main page requests area needs to be more prominent. PresN's idea of leaving a note informing about main page requests should help with that. In regards to the Main Page requests for TFL area there are so many which were submitted ages ago which disheartens people from submitting there as they don't know if and how they are selected or if it'll be left there to rot as hardly anyone votes there. There should be an archiving process also to allow new nominations a better shot. Cowlibob (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • At WP:TFLS I have seen lists submitted a long time ago (I am not talking about my submissions), yet it has no response. If this keeps happening, I am afraid editors will stop submitting their lists one day. Not complaining, but wish it was also considered as importance as WP:TFAR. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Community consensus regarding article titles

At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Arshad Warsi, roles and awards/archive1, one reviewer has opposed for lack of consensus regarding titles. I was asked to change the title of the list and so I moved it to List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi. Now the reviewer opines that other editors would object to this title. What can I do here? I can't create consensus on my own. I hope someone would respond. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The entire titling issue a hurricane in a thimble. Personally, I wouldn't consider objections over the title "because there is no community consensus" to be actionable. The MOS doesn't standardize list titles, so we have many different titles that we've accepted in the past. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I am the editor to which Skr15081997 is referring. As I've stated during the FL nomination, I really don't feel that we should be promoting anymore articles of this type until we have some consensus over the article title (which, lest we forget, does form part of the WP:FLC). "[Name], roles and awards" titles are still extremely contentious. We currently have three FLs of this type, and the title format has been brought up at the nomination page for every single one of them. Many other editors have also raised objections to the titles (see, for example, the ones that I list here). Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards has had somewhere in the region of eighteen thousand words of debate on this one subject, and that's to say nothing about the discussion over at Category talk:Filmographies. Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards was actually promoted under the title Roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut, before being moved four minutes later to its current title, for no reason that I can see other than the editor's personal preference. So I guess that's another problem that I have with these articles: lack of stability (also a featured list criterion).
If whichever featured list delegate who chooses to close the nomination feels that my objections are not worth considering, that's his/her decision. I have made my opinions clear, and I stand by them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • By way of reminder there was an extensive discussion over one of the article titles which was closed with no consensus to change. The fact that you didn't like the outcome is painfully obvious, but that's life. Time to move on as this is unconstructive now. Dragging the question up every time someone rightly uses the title in good faith, they are harassed in the FLC by a threat of an oppose !vote that they feel forced to change it: this is not good. The consensus from that discussion was against you and your lack of respect for that, based on nothing by your own personal preference does you no credit at all. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Current title, "List of... " seems far more appropriate than the original which was awkward and non-standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

Just done a fair bit of work on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, but I'm a bit stumped as to whether it qualifies more as a list or an article. Any thoughts on whether it would be more appropriate here at FLC, or over at GA/FA? Harrias talk 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • LOL - I was possibly going to say article (with reservations)! It's one of those that is borderline and would happily sit in both camps, I think. Ian Rose, from an FAC perspective, would you have this down as list or article? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My personal expectation for a literary work (i.e. a short story collection) would be FAC. But it's missing critical reception (contemporary reviews). That will certainly be an issue at FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I do like a consensus! My first thought was GA/FAC, but the main issue I came across was the fact that as each story was individually released first a lot of the information seems more relevant in the article for the story than in here: for example, there is very little critical reception on the collection, but plenty on each individual story. I could add in such a section and expand this into more of an article, but I don't want to go too in depth on each story, given they all have their own articles. Harrias talk 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ugh, I can't make up my mind. I've seen FLs with that much intro text, and I've seen articles with a table that big too. My vote is that it's your call- I'd be willing to promote it if it passed at FLC, but I'd also be fine with it at FAC (though I would want to see a reception section in order to actually support, so given your above comments it may just be in your best interest to go for FLC on that alone.) --PresN 17:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks Schro for the ping. Yes, not easy -- I'm persuaded most by the point highlighted by Chris and Pres, and suggest that in its current form it might be best at FLC but add a reception section to round it out and you'd have a fair nom for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've decided to approach this from a slightly different angle. I've added in a "critical reception" section (though I've only included more generic reviews, rather than of specific stories), and opened a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/archive1). I'd invite any or all of you to have a look, and hopefully the review can help to shape the article further, and it might become clearer which route it should head along. Harrias talk 06:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I think this is one of the most borderline FAC/FLC cases I can remember. I'd lean toward this being a regular article now that a reception section has been added, but I honestly wouldn't object if this was nominated at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Humbly request more reviews

Hello. I put Shinhwa discography up for FL review quite some time ago, and only one person has made any comments. From reading older entries here, I see that discographies are somewhat hated here, but I improved the article in good faith and as what I'd hoped would be a way for me to introduce myself to the world of Good- and Featured-level article editing. Maybe it's really horrible, but I'd at least like feedback. This is my first time attempting anything like this, and I had very little against which to compare the subject matter regarding format and lead (there is only one other FL in Korean music, and it has many, many shortcomings). Please don't feel you must avoid it because you don't know Korean; if people unfamiliar with the material can't understand the article then I need to know that so I can improve it further. Thank your time. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note

Delegates note that User:Imzadi1979 is arguing for argument's sake at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of census-designated places in West Virginia/archive1– with serious ownership issues by Imzadi1979 there as well. Seattle (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal to permit redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Would someone be willing to spare some time to review Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)?

Would someone be willing to spare some time to review Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)? Nominating it a third time seems bothersome to say the least... --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

3(b) violation

The 3(b) criterion of WP:FL? seems unclear at least to me. When the guideline states "it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.", I can see some lists, forked out from smaller parent articles, developed and taken to FLC. Some reviewers see only the stand-alone point and completely ignore the CFORK guideline. Not sure if I'm missing something here. —Vensatry (ping) 08:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you find unclear? The statement, or list of statements seems pretty straight-forward. Is there a specific case you are thinking of? Harrias talk 08:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue is some lists are being forked-out of the parent articles, regardless of the latter's size. You may want to have a look at this candidate. —Vensatry (ping) 08:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case then reviewers are entirely entitled to oppose on 3b violation. It's happened plenty of times in the past. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Would like to hear from SchroCat, Crisco 1492, PresN, and Giants2008 as well. —Vensatry (ping) 12:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In this case, I think a stand-alone list is fine. There are 45 entries on the list, and the main article has 8.5k characters (1500 words). I would feel better if the main article was in better shape, but it is certainly not reasonable (to me) to include 45 awards and nominations in any main article, let alone one that is already longer than the majority of film articles on Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that in this case I don't think it's a 3(b) violation, due to the length of the awards table- even for a longer main article it would be quite big. --PresN 15:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please quote the part of WP:CFORK which supports your position (that this article would be too short to be split). WP:BALASPS states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." - A policy which having this table included in the main article would violate (as stated above, the awards table would be longer than the article itself). WP:SPINOFF supports having a second article with more detail (it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter) if length is considered an issue.
There is no prescribed line of what is too big; even WP:TOOBIG equivocates with "Length alone does not justify division" for articles under 40kb of readable prose in length. Since length is not the sole rationale (WP:BALASPS, above) WP:TOOLONG does not forbid forking. It also notes that the length "rules of thumb" apply differently to lists. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
To me, 45 entries should be enough for a stand-alone list in this context. Of course that is just my opinion, and I'm obligated to go by reviewer consensus, not my own feelings, should I be the one to close the FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harrias: Would like to say something? I can remember you have objected quite a few cricket lists based on the size of their parent articles citing 3(b)-vio. —Vensatry (ping) 16:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Only what has already been said really. Yes, there are cases where the parent article is too short, but in this case I don't think that is the case. It's maybe a bit border-line, but I think this cited case is fine. Each instance needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, we shouldn't really put in place a definite number. Harrias talk 16:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

List length query

Hello. I have prepared a list which I would like to nominate for FLC: List of knights and dames of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Edward VIII. It's the third in a series, but owing to Edward VIII's brief reign, the number of people included in the list is quite small. In all, eight are named. Would the delegates mind having a look over it to see whether it is suitable for FLC? King regards and many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

Do any of the co-ordinators have an opinion on this? (Should I not be asking the question here?) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
I've always thought that the rule of thumb was eight. Why that is/was I have no idea. That said, this looks a good list, and is clearly notable. I know very little about this; is there any other content that could be merged with this feasibly, or is this the only way this information can really be presented on the encyclopedia? Harrias talk 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Harrias. I can't see how more could be added to this, unless perhaps one created an article on all of the knighthoods Edward VIII gave, across all orders. That would be possible, though it might not b consistent with the pages on Queen Victoria and Edward VII I've already worked up to FL... However, I am happy to tweak - it is a short list, after all and Edward VIII had such a short reign. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
  • I'm not sure I've ever seen an absolute limit set on items in the list, as long as it meets the stand alone criteria, which I think this list does. I would say that your example would pass criteria 3 (both a and b) of WP:FLCR, so you should be okay. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I will go ahead and nominate it then. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Square Enix franchises/archive1

This FLC was requested to be withdrawn a week ago and the action hasn't been done yet. Putting it out there. GamerPro64 03:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No reason why you can't archive it yourself, I think you know what you're doing! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Subsection headings: STOP!

Per the instructions at the top of the FLC page, Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). I've noticed that a number of contributors now add section headings into reviews, let's make a decision, either stop doing it, or remove the instruction from the FLC instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I agree, we should stick to the guideline, and not do it. Harrias talk 16:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I say don't do it; it's not really necessary, and people tend to do it wrong anyways (they put one that's too high-level so it spills out onto the FLC page) --PresN 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that people are confused because the FAC instructions now suggest that subsections be created for long reviews there. This style is not my favorite thing to see and I prefer older formatting methods. However, we should be careful how we handle this because we are low on reviewers as it is. Let's be polite when telling them that their preferences go against our guidelines. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Tributaries of Shamokin Creek

Would anyone mind giving this FLC a review? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick review request from an experienced Wikipedian

Would it be possible if anyone could quickly look over this article and let me know if it is ready to be nominated? It has been a pet project of mine for years, but I would like to finally finish nominating it and would like to see if anyone has a pointer or two before I do so. If this is not the place and I should nominate it to get advice from there, let me know, and I will go right ahead and do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If no one else answers here, I'd say you have as good a chance as anyone else nominating. One thing, is that while you have scope="col", you don't have scope="row" on the first table. Defunct institutions has neither. My experience on FLC is limited, but my observation is that if the list is in fairly decent shape, FLC is more of a fine-tuning process. Also it's not necessarily a quick process, taking weeks or months. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Maile is right about the row scopes being needed, and I'd also have a look at using more descriptive alt text ("a building" conveys little; "a red-brick building", "a chapel with a spire", etc are not much longer but mean something). I'm also not sure why you've used one note for two columns, and a different but almost identical one for a third (notes 1 and 2), when all three could share the same one. If I'm not mistaken, @Ruby2010: has contributed a few lists of similar subject matter before; if you haven't already, have a look at hers and see if there's anything you think you're "missing" or could learn from. GRAPPLE X 14:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to lose the (Fall 2013) label, per WP:SEASON. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple important pieces of advice that I can offer. The first is to review the previous FLCs for this list and see if the reviewers' comments have been addressed. For example, I quickly looked at PresN's review from the last FLC and saw a couple of items he brought up that were not fixed; there may be more that I didn't check. Secondly, the merger proposal at the top of the page should be resolved before this is brought to FLC. If left unaddressed, it might lead to questions about whether the article is stable. Once you've had a chance to act on the comments here and in the prior FLCs, I hope that you do end up bringing it back here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Improving accessibility of strikeout

Some screen readers do not announce struck out text. I suggest the following instruction for this page:

"To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it."

Be reworded to say:

"To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it; please add "Objection struck out" (or whatever was struck out) following your signature, plus ~~~~ to sign the new comment."

Thisisnotatest (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit wordy, and it's hard enough to police people's informal comments without being over-specific. I'd prefer "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it, and leave a comment about the change." --PresN 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd accept that. It's an improvement over now. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not particularly savvy with screenreaders but I'd be happy to work on a subst-able template which could drop a marker beside stricken comments to denote them easily; @Thisisnotatest:, would a screen-reader pick up on text hidden in comment tags (<!-- these things -->)? GRAPPLE X 09:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Um, I don't know. @RexxS:? @Graham87:? Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, it would not. Graham87 04:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request on image criteria

This came up in a recent review, and the FL criteria is not specific to this. I asked an editor to include captions and alt text for each individual image in a table. The editor responded with "Pictures in tables do not need captions" but was good enough to do the captions anyway. For future reviews, do pictures within tables need to have the captions and alt text? — Maile (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say that they definitely still needs ALT text, as that is an accessibility must. But WP:CAPTION suggests that a caption is not needed "where the purpose of the image is clearly nominative, that is, that the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information" which I would say is generally the case in a table, as normally the image is being used as an obvious illustration of the subject. Harrias talk 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_19&oldid=1136423172"