Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Director?

Am I missing something here, or have the directors started doing whatever they're supposed to be doing? When will they resume their duties? And what are their duties? Noble Story (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Their duties are to promote or fail FLC nominations. It begins immediately, I believe. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we put something in the main FL page about it? Noble Story (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Um, quite so, immediately. Since Scorpion and The Rambling Man are now the directors (and the two others responsible for demotions), others should not be promoting or archiving ... like, from now. I'm going to make some emergency changes to the instructions. Please review them. Tony (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made some quick changes to the instructions to legitimise the existence and role of the directors. There's a red link I don't know how to fix, and I've made a few assumptions on the basis of Template:FAC-instructions. I haven't dealt with the demotions process and the two users who will do that—needs thought and possibly reference to the FAR/C instructions.
  • In the meantime, the most urgent issue is for people to give their opinions about whether the 10-day rule needs to be dumped (since we have directors to do that now), and whether they might be entrusted with the calling of overall judgements as to consensus without the encumbrance of the rule about four minimum votes. I left that stuff in there, but I firmly believe it would be best to allow the directors the lattitude; those rules seem to be more suitable when anyone can archive or promote. PS There were lots of mentions of "articles"; I've them changed to "lists". Tony (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the four support minimum rule is officially abolished (that being said, while I will promote lists with less than than, I probably will try and wait for four supports). There is no consensus on the 10 day rule, so lets revisit the issue in a month or so. -- Scorpion0422 22:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate here, with no or minimal commentary. Discussion please below the consensus area.

SUPPORT abolition of four "Support" votes as a minimum for consensus.

OPPOSE abolition of four "Support" votes as a minimum for consensus.

__________________________________________________

SUPPORT abolition of the 10-day rule for removal from the list where consensus is "unclear".

OPPOSE abolition of the 10-day rule for removal from the list where consensus is "unclear".

__________________________________________________

Comments, if any

  • (4 support votes) If there is no need for support votes, then I feel that belittles community input. I know that vote-stacking can happen, which is why four votes isn't always sufficicent for FL status. However, if a list is not good enough, then it won't get the support votes. Hence lack of support votes is a clear sign the community doesn't feel the list is good enough. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is feeling belittled at having directors? Seemed to be a popular decision. Vote-stacking is always a risk, and now our disinterested directors are there to sort out that aspect; they should not be hampered by an arbitrary requirement, and should be allowed to get on with the job (see the massive vote of confidence in them on the election page?). In any case, "supports" are typically devoid of commentary or analysis—you wonder about them often. The FAC process has now become oriented towards the resolution of criticisms; supports are taken into consideration, but are not weighted as heavily. And a good thing it is, too, IMO. Tony (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I partially agree with both of you. While I would not outright oppose getting rid of the four support minimum, I believe it is useful in making sure enough people see the page. -- Scorpion0422 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the idea that it doesn't need to be explicit now we have directors. Dropping it might help the directors if/when they choose not to promote a list that has reached the threshold but has yet to garner the criticism it deserves. Let's be quite clear that the director isn't able to promote a list that hasn't got consensus (he can't make up the numbers) and four support = three independent reviewers supporting. Having only two supporting reviewers isn't exactly a show of confidence. What I'm saying is that IMO the new wording (taken from FAC) isn't any weaker than the old. Colin°Talk 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I support retention of the 4-support-vote rule because it ensures that a list will have been reviewed by enough different sets of eyes to validate its quality. --Orlady (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (10 day rule) What's the rush? If a list is good enough, then an extra few days doesn't hurt it. If it's not quite good enough, then there should be time for reviewers to come along and make suggestions (or carry out improvements themselves). If the list is now way near good enough (but consensus is uncertain), then it allows time for objections to be raised. There are no deadlines to get WP "good enough" - we have all the time in the world. (Btw, I'm glad that these issues are being raised. Talking is always good). Tompw (talk) (review) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If the directors determine that there is consensus after eight rather than 10 days, and there's a flood of nominations, it's in everyone's interests to get the house-cleaning done. No one likes a huge backlog—neither reviewers nor nominators. It won't happen often, but the directors should again be given some lattitude: we've put our trust in them. We, on the other hand, should be reviewing and nominating. Let's assume that the process will be clean from the start. It works well enough elsewhere. Tony (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think for now we should leave things the way they are and let Rambling Man and I get a feel for things first. The four support rule doesn't matter to me, but I do think there should be a mimum period up so that we can ensure that enough people see it. You have to remember that this is not the FA process in that it will never have as much participation, so a minumum amount of time does help things out. Let's focus on changing the criteria, and restart this disucssion in June or July. -- Scorpion0422 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm definitely in favour of removing the four-support rule. Since I'm going to (somehow) ensure that lists get to FLC via PR then the 10 day rule can, in my opinion, stay for a while, but I'm hoping we can remove it altogether and place the responsibility of the closure timing with the directors. Otherwise a 'bot could do the job... I tend to side with Scorpion in so far as we need to keep some level of consistency with FLC right now until the criteria have been agreed. Let's revisit this in a month's time... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Also I need to clarify that the ten-day limit may result in a possible backlog (as we have now) but it also allows for additional comment from folks who aren't 24/7 Wikipedians. I think the amalgamated concept (i.e. min 4 supports after min 10 days = pass) is wrong but I'm happy, for now, to keep nominations open for 10 days, regardless of support. But this is something I'm more than prepared to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Again I think the new wording (from FAC) is fine. Actually the old wording wasn't "10 days where consensus is unclear" but was 10 days minimum for all lists. I'd be worried if the directors promoted a list after two days as that would disenfranchise those reviewers who aren't there every day. But I don't think the directors would do that so why legislate. Colin°Talk 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I think the abolition of the 10-day rule for removal from the list where consensus is "unclear" statement above should be changed to abolition of the 10-day rule for promotion of the list where consensus is "clear". Right now, I don't understand why we support/oppose a rule that has never been here in the first place. I oppose the abolition of the 10-day rule for promotion of the list where consensus is "clear", though.--Crzycheetah 23:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've struck through the erroneous text; thanks for pointing this out. Please re-examine your vote there. Tony (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the lists being removed/archived in less than 10 days as long as those lists are far from meeting the criteria. At the same time, I oppose abolishing the 10-day rule for promotions, meaning the directors have to wait at least 10 days before deciding to promote any list. --Crzycheetah 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The dangerous things about the four-support minimum are that it (1) shifts the process towards a voting rather than a consensus culture; (2) encourages drive-by "Support"s; and (3) discounts the role of opposes that are resolved, where a reviewer fails to return to strike through and write "Support" (common)—a far more reliable guide than a drive-by "Support". This is a major reason we now have directors. The notion that this is some guarantee of sufficient reviewing is far from the mark.
  • Retaining the 10-day minimum will handicap the directors' ability to manage the size of the list by removing nominations that are clearly promotable or archivable before 10 days are up—especially the former. It is more appropriate when there are no directors. Tony (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying that the 4-support minimum should be retained is not the same as saying that support from just 4 people is sufficient. Directors should have latitude to determine whether a list has received sufficient review, but the requirement for a minimum of 4 supporters provides a baseline criterion to help avoid situations in which a list is promoted without being reviewed from multiple perspectives. --Orlady (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Tony, why are you so worried about the size of the list of nominations? Why should directors promote/archive a nomination just for the sake of decreasing the size of the WP:FLC? Again, we need to give 10 days at least, so that any nominated list gets enough comments/suggestions. I am more worried about the quality of lists than the size of WP:FLC.--Crzycheetah 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Because a large list is a disincentive for attracting and keeping reviewers (drop-in-the-ocean syndrome); it's also harder for the directors to keep abreast of. Tony (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Right now, there are 31 nominations that are here for 10 days at most. I believe that's a reasonable number. The reason why there are 58 nominations altogether is the lack of activity of our directors.--Crzycheetah 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Voting has slowed to a trickle, and it's clear at least to me that the abolition of the four-support rule has sufficient support to proceed in the short-term, while the 10-day minimum does not. Therefore, does anyone object if the four-support rule is removed on, say, Sunday? Tony (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal (4) for new FL criteria: INPUT REQUESTED

Everyone, especially the directors, can you please take a look at Revised proposal (4) HERE? After lots of debate, it seems to be settling onto this one, so your input/agreement/objections would be appreciated.

It would be nice to settle the matter soon, since we have now appointed the directors; whatever we post up there to replace the current criteria, it's not set in stone, and of course is subject to further debate whenever someone wishes. Tony (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, apologies for the delay in my input. It's there now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Rambles. We seem to be gradually approaching consensus on Version 4 (amended bit by bit). I've proposed that Sunday be the day of implementation, so please go to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Revised_proposal_.284.29 if you object to that time-line or have comments/suggestions on the proposed text. Tony (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick FLC question

Im not sure best place to ask this question (I did not see it addressed in the featrued list criteria list). When listing multiple items primarily from the same source. Do you need to cite each item in the list, or is citing an intro paragraph stating where it all comes from sufficient? An example is V speeds, which I am working on cleaning up. Most of the speeds are defined in federal regulations. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For the table contents, you can add a general reference list, similar to what is done with episode lists (such as List of Meerkat Manor episodes). Everything that isn't a summation in the lead though, should be cited with inline speeds. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks much! If I have any other questions about featured lists, do you have a problem if I come directly to your talk page? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, always happy to help :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As for running prose, there needs to be a balance between citing every single citable statement and the clutter that involves, and undesirable imprecision in connecting claims with sources. In general, I'd say use the minimal density of citation references that maintains reasonable precision. (In prose, you may be able to get away with one ref at the end of several statements, if it's not unclear. It partly depends on the context.) Tony (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

List vs. article again

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Featured list to featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To expand, User:Raul654 has made a bold suggestion that FAC "absorbs" FLC. Worthwhile discussion ensuing, I suspect, along with a lot of forehead slapping and "Why didn't I think of that?"'s. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think of that because it's a bad idea. Tony (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

New criteria

We now have newly reworded criteria. The change was made by Tony1 after a couple of weeks of discussion here. -- Scorpion0422 12:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, Scorpion, I should have posted. I've even test-driven them in a review—smooth steering; strong brakes; punchy sound-system. Tony (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia during the discussions, although I'm happy for the criteria to be as they are in their new state, except for including the word "colour". I've seen plenty of lists which over-use colours just to make them look pretty, and it seems a bit BEANSY to mention it in the criteria. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Input requested from those with much more experience as FL reviewers than I have. BTW, my pet hate is where columns are not tweaked for optimal width. Even though they stretch and contract with the size of one's window, it's best to minimise the distortion (unnecessarily wide or narrow columns), don't you think. Hate those dates that wrap over two lines in squidgy little boxes where there's spare horizonantal room in other columns. Not worth writing into the criteria, but I think it's actionable under at least one of the new criteria. Tony (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like more of a technical problem, unless you can give a specific example that says otherwise? Gary King (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hidden comments

I just commented on a list whose proposer I thought to be Gary King - until I started editing and saw his hidden comments. I now notice he has added comments to several lists this way. Is there some useful function to this "hiding"? I was about to strip the code out but thought I would ask first. Rmhermen (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They're very useful in pinpointing the locations of issues for the primary authors to address. Tony (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Generally comments are hidden once the commenter feels they have been addressed. It helps make FLCs easier to read and keeps them shorter. -- Scorpion0422 05:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You can use {{hide}} to perform this function. Gary King (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I have similar problems specifically with Gary King's "hidden" boxes. Gary, I'd like you to use a "bg1" parameter to add a the background-color for the heading of your hidden box because, right now, your box' background color is the same as the color of FLC and it's very confusing.--Crzycheetah 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay done Gary King (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, Gary, you don't really need to cap a one or two sentence comment. Caps are meant to keep lengthy conversations or comments neat. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I get bugged to do something about my comments so I just 'close' them. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You can just strike them out, especially if it's only one or two sentences. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

FLRC delegates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It's unanimous. They will serve as delegates. -- Scorpion0422 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Before becoming director, I was the one that handled most of the WP:FLRC process. Now that I am a director, I figured it would be best to appoint a delegate (or two) to take care of the process. I am nominating Dweller and Matthewedwards because they were my first choices for the position due to their experience. The two would prefer to go through some kind of confirmation process, so here it is. Two delegates will be promoted. Although I am not sure if two are actually needed, I figured this way they could share the duties (ie. one comments, one closes) and having two certainly does not hurt.

Since nobody else has expressed any interest in the position, this will be a confirmation process. -- Scorpion0422 08:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Do you support Dweller and Matthewedwards being appointed to FLRC delegates?

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.

Updating instructions for FLRC

I think it might be a good idea for us to take a look at the instructions for FAR/C and possibly borrow what people think is worth having. Should there be a formal binary structure as they have there—review first, then list of removal candidates? I do think there are probably a lot of FLs out there that need a good massage if they're to retain their star. Standards have surely changed since FLC was born three years ago, as they have for FAs. TONY (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm not sure if the two-step approach FAR/C takes is necessary for Lists. It's easier to update a list, expand the header and update/find references (which are usually the three main concerns at FLRC) than it is with articles, and oftentimes these things do get done once a list is brought to FLRC. Perhaps one thing that could help the process is not just notifying the relevant Wikiprojects, but also the main contributors to the article, the one who nominated it in the first place, and perhaps those who commented on its FLC. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I disagree with the idea that it needs to be discussed or considered. The two step process at FAR is unnecessarily long and certainly overly convoluted for the lists. FARs are now sitting for weeks, with some passing a month, when they should have lost their FA class long ago. The only part of it that I agree would be useful is, as Matthew suggested, requiring the appropriate notifications be made.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
You're not "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with anything, since I just raised a question—it wasn't a proposal. So take your "ugh" elsewhere. TONY (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Sod off. TONY (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7) (This was a response to what I regarded as an offensive posting by AnmaFinotera, who has removed it.) TONY (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
To both of you, take your bickering that isn't relevant to this talk page elsewhere. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Perhaps the folk at FAR could enlighten us of the benefits and disadvantages of their system. It certainly has an extra overhead and causes confusion. I can see the benefit of being able to recover a fading FA without the added pressure of new folk !voting remove every day. Sort of like Chapter 11. Who typically restores the article? The original editors, nominator or does it often rely on a team of willing volunteers? Should we even suggest notifying the main editors/nominates (personally, or through the article talk page) prior to FLRC -- to give editors a chance to fix it without any public embarrassment? What proportion of lists/articles are doomed (original editors gone, no volunteers)? The doomed lists should ideally be processed with minimal overhead. Colin°Talk 12:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Colin and others: The main issue I was thinking of was the insistence at FAR/C of nominators' contacting the main authors and Wikiprojects. I see that it's not a requirement here. I don't see that "embarrassment" should play any role in updating and/or improving a FL. It's an essential part of maintaining the binary system (featured/non-featured) that you all support, or wouldn't be here, I guess. FAR is at its best when it marshals forces behind a temporary improvement drive at a FA. It safeguards standards and ensures that existing featured content adapts to new criteria. We have new criteria, and they naturally apply to all FAs, not just new ones. TONY (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I certainly approve of adding the notification step. Colin°Talk 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
FAR/C is aimed partly at promoting a culture of looking after the featured content that you are successful in having promoted. I think many nominations at FAR/C that are found to be wanting are demoted because no original or subsequent editors can be bothered to address the reviewers' concerns. Too bad. The minority that garner support from those editors during the process often end up much improved and are retained. It's a necessary part of maintaining this binary featured/non-featured structure in WP. TONY (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

The List of Dutch vegetarians is a current candidate. The list contains a number of wikilinks to nl.wikipedia.org for people on the list, as well as a proportion of unlinked people. Since people-lists should list notable people (by which I mean those having a reasonable chance of a Wikipedia article), I believe the unlinked people should either be dropped or turned into red links. The issue that is less clear is whether the Dutch links should be changed to redlinks to English articles. Have we seen this issue before? Any opinions? I'm leaning towards redlinks, which would probably lead to the nomination being unsuccessful at this time. Colin°Talk 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I was actually going to close it because it's been over a month and it doesn't have consensus yet. But I agree that the links on the page should be on this wiki. -- Scorpion0422 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
(ec)I agree with you Colin. Linking to the Dutch Wikipedia is just like linking to any other external link. I don't know if the links should be removed or not, but I would agree that an oppose based on this holds merit and should be changed if the list is to be featured. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I think wikilinking to another language wikipedia should be a valid reason to oppose. It could be seen as an easy way to get rid of redlinks. For this article any links to the Dutch site should be relinked to the English site, and those names that aren't linked should be, otherwise it's too much like cherry picking. Requests could always be made at Wikipedia:Translation. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I concur with the above. Per Matthewedwards, it's cherry picking and shouldn't be a valid substitute when a redlink exists. Asking for their removal as an oppose rationale is justified. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Pointless opposes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The user now understands comments and objections made here, no thanks to this thread. Please, in the future, bring concerns to the user's talk page first. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 12:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I'd like to request some input on GreenJoe (talk · contribs). This user has, within the last 24 hours, submitted an oppose vote/comment to almost, if not every, every FLC that is currently underway. Basically, his opposes are because lists do not have inline citations, but nonetheless are fully reference via a "General" reference section. Here is a random selection of only some of the opposes: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] , [7]. The rest of his superfluous opposes can be found here and here. We need to build up consensus for this person, and if necessary, remove his oppose comments/votes, but at minimum, they should be discounted, as its unfair to oppose lists, despite them being fully referenced and comprehensive, just because they lack a few citations. Qst (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

While my comments in relation to the FLC's may be general, I did read each and every list. Your unfair accusation suggest you're not assuming good faith. GreenJoe 05:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt; I don't need to be told to AGF. Impossible, you couldn't have read all the lists in such a short space of time (one comment every 1-2 mins.) Qst (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I would say those "votes" can be safely ignored when judging what the consensus is. Even if they were made in good faith they are far from helpful and more likely to be disruptive than to lead to a better consensus. 1 != 2 06:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
(EC) You bet I did. I was on a slow connection, so I read, and while I read, I opened the FLC pages. So I may have left the comments around the same time, but I read them. I did 5 pages at a time. Opened each in a new tab, and since it was taking a while for each page to open, I then moved on to the next, while I opened to the talk page, and then to the FLC comment page. GreenJoe 06:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Is there any particular reason you had to review all FLCs within a few minutes? Wouldn't it have done just as much good to closely review each articl individually instead of skipping over them and oppposing based on not enough references? I realize that you may just be trying to help, but it would be much more constructive to the FLCs' nominators to give some specifics. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Joe, I wonder whether you might make such comments in relation to global references of the information, where individual refs are not provided. Is what you read in the leads not specific enough? TONY (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
In Russian Music Competition, there were simply no in-line citations in the tables themselves. In-line citations are required to be elevated. Same thing in List of baryons, where even in the body, there were hardly any citations at all!! That's not including the tabled area. I don't see why I can't oppose based on a lack of citations. GreenJoe 06:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
But that was just one of your opposes. This one was, with all due respect, incorrect, and I suspect you were just looking for a reason to oppose. That list, no top of numerous others, has a source for almost if not every last fact. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Lets say we were to put inline citations in the table. Don't you think it would look messy with [#] repeated over and over again? I think you're looking for reasons to oppose in decent and acceptable lists. Qst (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Look at List of Dartmouth College alumni. They cite every addition in the table. It looks nice and crisp. Or List of Athabasca University people. I realize these are people-orientated, but they're perfect examples. Now for List of highways in Warren County, New York: There's an entire 15 references, none in the table itself. I don't think I'm being unreasonable at all in asking for more in-line citations. There are ways to use the same references for many in-line citations. GreenJoe 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
GreenJoe, if you actually looked at List of highways in Warren County, New York, you would see that there is a reference, and it is sufficient to support information in the entire table. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 06:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I had noticed GreenJoe's comments and couldn't help but wonder how he managed to review 20+ FLCs (plus 4 FLRCS) in the space of about 30 minutes. I also noticed that most of his comments were either opposing due to a lack of citations or echoing previous comments. For example, here he oppose per a user whose concerns have been addressed. In this one he supported per me, although I hadn't supported at all.

While I hate discouraging people from commenting, you have to remember that the process is not ruled by votes. Some constructive comments would be far better than a quick support vote. -- Scorpion0422 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

  • We are not discouraging you from casting an opinion, we are just trying to ensure that they are both relevant and if they are already covered by the page in question. Rudget (Help?) 07:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
  • That's exactly what you are doing, Scorpion. Making me feel like I shouldn't bother at all. GreenJoe 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Do we all agree that "Not enough inline citations" is never a valid reason to oppose. The ratio of superscript numbers to prose or table size is not a guide to conformance with WP:V. Sometimes an entire list can be sourced to one reference and then there is no need for the list entries to have inline citations. Sometimes (like with the SSSI lists) there is an alternative means that the reader can use to work out which entry is sourced to which reference. To oppose over WP:V or issues with citations, you need to give specific examples of text that is either completely unsourced, or is inadequately sourced (for example, it isn't easy to work out which general reference to consult, or the reference is a book rather than a page within the book). There are relatively few circumstances where inline citations are mandatory (for example, direct quotations). Colin°Talk 08:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Absolutely; what matters is whether the claims in the text are sufficiently well-grounded in the literature, not their density or number. TONY (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I also noticed that this user brought up a strange Template for Deletion (WP:TFD) at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22#Template:WPCanada Navigation, which resulted in a snowball keep per WP:SNOW. Feel free to read the comments posted there, too, which suggests that the user has had a history of similar actions. Gary King (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
And you have a history of being bored, apparently. Why don't you go pick on someone your own size? GreenJoe 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Colin is right, I can indeed agree that if inline citations were different numbers everytime, they would look okay, but if you were just repeating [1] again and again, as you would have been in a lot of cases where Joe voted oppose, it would look silly. Qst (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I suppose a valid concern would be to say that the inline citations were confusing or made it hard to see where the data came from. As Colin says, number alone is not a useful yardstick. - Suicidalhamster (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Citations are always a valid concern, and yes, a number alone is useful. Asking for in-line citations is my job. Next time I just won't bother at all. GreenJoe 11:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
When used constructively, comments regarding citations, or lack of, are a valid concern. But when a fairly short article is well referenced, of course it's not going to have 80 references. I do, however, strongly disagree that a number of citations in an article is a useful way to determine one's !vote in an FLC or FAC. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Nobody is saying that; of course potential featured lists should be referenced, but it doesn't have to be inline. :-) Qst (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Yes, it doe. And if you can't see that, then there's no point in me even bothering anymore. Maybe I should just leave Wikipedia if this is how I'm going to be treated. GreenJoe 11:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I recommend archiving this discussion, I trust our directors will do their job, and all this conversation is doing is alienating a user. If you have specific issues that still need to be addresses, please move it to his talk page. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)
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.

Size of lists

OK, this has come up again, and I really, really think this matter should be put to rest? What an article too small? At what point exactly does it fail to be "Wikipedia's best work"? I would really like to know. Noble Story (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

If the list is comprehensive and significant, it can be quite short. However 1 or 2 items doesn't a list make. Rmhermen (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)
There has been precedence that on sports-related lists, that 10 items is the requirement for a true "list." I do feel this is arbitrary, and it depends on the list. For example, a list of 9 items where all the list consists of is a table of said items, then I would probably stick to the 10 item count. But if a list had 9 items where there was a paragraph explaining each item, I would feel more inclined to state that it can still be "Wikipedia's best work." The reason we say that most small lists are not Wikipedia's best, is to prevent over-listification (I made that word up). We dont want people to start making list like List of American Presidents in the 2000s, where yes it could be very comprehensive and well-written and all that, but there is only one item in the list. If a list is too big, its scope should be narrowed, if a list is too small, its scope should be broadened. Basically some lists just arent big enough to be featured (imho). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Gonzo pretty much explained why short lists are bad to Wikipedia and when the 10 items requirement can be ignored. Recently, many lists of head coaches are created because editors feel that these lists must be created. In reality, though, these lists should be made only if tables are too big to stay in the teams' pages.--Crzycheetah 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I agree with Gonzo and Crzycheetah. It ultimately depends on the list, but also how much detail the list goes into/should go into. A table of 9 items is a little iffy, but a list of 9 items with each thoroughly explained is different. So, I would say just for pragmatic purposes, 10 is a good cut-off, unless there is a good reason to find exception to the rule. Drewcifer (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Nominations of lists with small scopes

There's been a number of lists coming to FLC recently with small scopes of entries. While they are all excellently written, sourced, presented (basically meet all 7 criteria), can a list of only 9 entries "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work"? Right now I'm thinking of List of Houston Rockets head coaches, List of ABA champions, List of New York Jets head coaches, List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches, and List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches.

Should there be a "minimum entry" requirement? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

See the above section. There is an unwritten requirement that states no less than 10 items, but there may be some exceptions to that requirement. Gonzo explains those exceptions above.--Crzycheetah 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Haha! Whoops! Didn't notice the above discussion! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

(ec)No there shouldn't, as I loosely stated in the thread above, each list needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. But reviewers should be able to oppose based on length, stating that the current state of the article does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. As I stated above, a list can be presented in many different ways, and as CrzyCheetah stated, a list should only be created where it is best served to stand by itself, where it is too big to be housed in a broader subject matter. Yes 10 entries is arbitrary, and of course if I saw a list with 9 entries, I would not automatically oppose it, I would review the list and make a judgment on whether the list is Wikipedia's best. Personally I do not want to see a bunch of small lists become featured, and if consensus is to create a mandate that says a list must have a certain amount of entries, then I would accept it. But personally, I feel that each list should be judged on its own merits, and reviewers, in good faith, should be able to oppose a list if they feel for some reason (so long as they provide a solid reason) that it does not represent Wikipedia's best work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

List of New York Jets head coaches has 16 items, List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches has 15, and List of Houston Rockets head coaches has 11. So why are they being discussed here? Noble Story (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Simply because the issue was raised on their FLC pages. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Depends on how much information is given aside from the pure names. I think the NY Jets example is OK (except for MoS breaches, ahem). TONY (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Wikipedia's best work is determined by the featured content criterion. In this case, WP:WIAFL. Nowhere does that set of criterion state an article has to be of X length and include X items. And since FLC is bascially a discussion to determine if it meets those criteria, I personally don't see a reason why any list, regardless of size, can't become featured. Of course it would be rediculous for a list with one or two or even three items which could easily be merged into other articles or lists. If reviewers do decide their !vote using WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT, it would water down featured content and its criterion. I don't think there should be a length requirement, as a lot of lists are indeed quite small. That would take away the ability for those lists to become featured. As long as a list is comprehensive, it should deserve the title of FL just as much as a 100 kb list. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Just to point out, I would and have opposed lists because they are too large, such as a 100kb list. That makes it harder for our readers to load the page, and is a prime example of the other end of the spectrum in our problem here, where the list is too large and should have its scope narrowed into smaller separate lists.
Also, I think you are forgetting the first criterion for featured status, that the list represents Wikipedias best work. A reviewer must first feel that the list does in fact represent Wikipedia's best work before going on to the separate guidelines. If we start allowing small lists, what is going to stop people from taking a FL such as List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks, and start making List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks in the 1930s, List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks in the 1940s, and so on? These lists would serve no purpose to be lists, as a larger article already adequately covers the information they include. See, we are not opposing because of length, we are opposing because we feel that the list's scope is not large enough to lend itself to a separate list format. In this case, we feel that the lists would be better served in the parent article, until the length of the list becomes large enough to create separate articles for the different sections in the parent article. Now since people have decided this, they had to pick a number, and 10 seems to be that number. Yes it is arbitrary, but it is not set in stone, that just seems to be the number that most people feel comfortable that the list deserves to be stand alone. See above for my examples on how the 10 entries can be circumvented, that it all depends on whether the list should stand by itself, not its overall size. No one is saying "oh that list doesn't have 10 entries so I oppose." What people are saying is that the list itself is small enough and does not go into enough detail to stand alone in a separate article, thus it should remain in the parent article. Oh yeah, this has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 12:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)
But what I am trying to say is that the definition of Wikipedia's best work shouldn't be limited by the scope of an article. I mean, of course I wouldn't support List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks in the 1940s as an FLC, but I wouldn't oppose, either. I would bring it to AfD based on notability. Criterion #3 states that a list has to be comprehensive. So if there are dozens of similar articles and this one just happens to be shorter, but still comprehensive, why shouldn't it be considered Wikipedia's best work? Since it already meets those criterion, why wait until List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches, for example, has 10 entries? It's not like a couple of coaches are going to retire this year, so the list could stay the same for years. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Then I think we are at a stalemate here :) I, like others, just do not want over-listification. But I will let others respond, as I have explained my position as much as I can. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Nobody wants over listification. I respect your and others' opinion on the matter, but I think the criterion is becoming less of a standard and more of what people like and/or dislike. I agree that it would be best to get the responses from the rest of the community. I hope I'm not being too much of a pain. :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Haha, no I understand your stance and it is no pain. But I encourage anyone coming here to comment to focus on the problems with this list, as after my review, this list is nowhere close to meeting the featured criteria, and I find it atrocious that this list has been supported for featured status. I mean this list has an image that is breaking copyright laws in it, doesn't have any categories, and so on (see the link). If, and only if, the basic issues are addressed, then we can start talking about size. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Wow, I didn't even see the lack of cats. I just assumed it would be categorized. Gah, I feel like a bad reviewer. :-/ Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Haha, I looked like 4 times just to make sure I wasnt missing them, and don't worry, that is something most people don't notice because it should be there before coming here :/ « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
In this context, I believe in the principle of "I know it when I see it." I nominated the 10-item list Nicknames of Houston for FL status after I ran across the article and said to myself, "This is an exemplar of a list!" The article is about a collection of disparate elements that are individually non-notable (this is a defining attribute of many lists), it is comprehensive and well sourced, and (most importantly in my mind) Nicknames of Houston makes an odd collection of elements into an interesting and notable topic. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC-7)
I don't see why length itself should be considered an actionable objection. If you think it would be better off merged into an article, then object on that basis, but if there's a consensus for a list's existence, length itself is not relevant. (FYI, my own list of calypso-like genres may be the shortest non-sports list (anyone know of a shorter one?) Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office has ten. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)
I'm trying to get List of heads of state of Gabon, and that has 4 entries. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC-7)
That's a ridiculous proposal, IMHO. Featured lists should be used to highlight effective use of the list format to present information that does not lend itself to the more conventional article format. I believe that a nice article could be written about Gabon's four heads of state without resorting to a tabular format; indeed, I think an article in paragraph form form would be more effective than the current list format. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC-7)

automatic archiving?

The talk page is rather large by now. How do people feel about inserting an automatic archiving for all sections that haven't been touched for the past 10 days? It works well at MOS talk. TONY (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Go for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Definitely. Drewcifer (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

hyphens in blank squares: why not en dashes?

I notice that hyphens are normally used, such as here:

I wonder why en dashes haven't been mandated from the start. They are much more readable in this context (see both en and em dashes below):

Announced Diva Brand Order Eliminated by
1 Maria Raw 2 Hall
2 Beth Phoenix Raw – WINNER
3 Melina Raw – McCool & Wilson
4 Jillian Hall Raw — Wilson
5 Mickie James Raw 8 Melina
6 Torrie Wilson SD! 10 Phoenix
7 Victoria SD! — Marshall
8 Kristal Marshall SD! – McCool
9 Michelle McCool SD! 11 Phoenix
10 Layla ECW — Melina
11 Kelly Kelly ECW 6 Phoenix & Hall
12 Brooke ECW 1 Phoenix

TONY (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

From what I can tell they are already mandated. The new thing is to actually use mdashes that look like — for blank spaces. But, the dashes have always been a big point brought up since I have been reviewing lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Indeed. I have yet to complete a PR, GAR, FLC or FAC where an incorrect use of a dash was not brought up. It is part of the style guide, after all. Resolute 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Well, we should get tough on it. TONY (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I can't speak for all FLCs or all reviewers, but I bring up the dashes in every discography FLC I review. Drewcifer (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Me too, though I always thought (and ask the nominators) to use mdashes. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
I don't use en dashes in this situation; I usually use em dashes. I prefer them because they are longer so it conveys the message better to the reader that the cell is purposely empty. Gary King (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Hmmm, Gary, I've thought about em dashes already, and concluded that they're just a bit on the large size, and end up drawing the eyes towards the absence of info. Hyphens are just too squidgy to see, but en dashes are just right (Goldilocks). That's my take, anyway. TONY (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)
Odd, I thought en-dashes were already required. Hyphens are definitely not appropriate though. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)
En dashes work for me, too. Done and done. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)
  • MOS on en dashes does talk of them as separators in lists, but not as signifiers of "no info" in otherwise blank squares. The issue has come up at MOS talk, too. I propose that en dashes be mandated, not em dashes. I've removed the upper table above, since no one seriously condones hyphens, and have tweaked the lower example to include more of both en and em dashes, for bettter comparison. I see no reason yet that the "En dash" section in MOS main page shouldn't have another point about this. TONY (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

New FLRC instructions?

I've taken the bull by the horns. Please criticise. Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates. TONY (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

People see problems with the elaborate binary system used at FARC. Fair enough; so I propose a modest revamp of the instructions, with the substantive change of introducing the notion of list improvement/updating (not a separate structural section, though). I feel that this is an important part of running a featured-content program: not just shooting 'em down when they don't comply.

HERE. TONY (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Layout query

I've just reviewed another nomination where I feel the columns are unreasonably narrow—one in particular has the text squashed downwards, one or words per line. The "Term" column could easily be narrowed (two-digit closing years should be the norm in tables, I think).

Yet there's only one pic to the right of the table, and it would fit in above nicely in the "Key" section. That would enable the table to be spread out fully to avoid the squash.

In general, I find a tendency to waste space in some columns that could be used to wide columns in which there's considerable double-back of text. Does anyone else think more attention might be paid to this aspect of layout in FLs? I know the table spreads automatically when you widen your window, but (1) lots of visitors won't know to do that, (2) it's a nuisance to have to do it, and (3) some folks will have small monitors and/or slow connections for the doing.

List_of_New_York_Jets_head_coaches#Key TONY (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC-7)

The smallest monitor size that a page should accommodate for is 1024x768. That used to be the norm for many years but recently, people have gotten much bigger monitors so that size is roughly 50% of all monitors while the remaining 50% is larger than that. I agree that things shouldn't be squished (who would disagree on that?) but the problem is that this is a layout issue that most people won't know how to resolve or will often forget; the only reason I usually check for this is because of my web development background... Gary King (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Move "Urgent" box to its own page?

Is it okay if I moved the "Urgent" box to its own page, so it can be watched separately? I watch WP:FLC and I would rather not want to see all the edits made to the Urgent box; I can add an "Edit", "History", and "Watch" button to the Urgent box so you can still do all those actions from the comfort of WP:FLC, but it would just house that information on another page that can also be transcluded to other pages if wanted. Gary King (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

This is a good idea. I think WP:GAN does this. Not sure about FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)
I'd prefer to keep it on this page, then I can remove the closures and stuff in the urgent box at the same time. -- Scorpion0422 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)
FAC has a completely separate page for this. GAN does this. Also, I was going to bring this up but finally did because Rambling Man made, like, 10 edits to remove a handful of lists :p Gary King (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Also, this would help with organization, and certainly breaking up pages in segments is more helpful than hurtful. For instance, the instructions on FLC are on a separate page, so minor design changes and such do not bother those watching this page. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)
But for those people watching this page, when the "urgent"/"overtime" box is updated, it can remind people to check to see if they've reviewed the urgent pages yet. I know it does for me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Then those people (myself included) can simply watchlist the separate page. Drewcifer (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Mea culpa. I believe it's a good idea. Peer review backlog also has such a concept, which is very useful, and dates each peer review without comment. We could develop an analogy I think without too much difficulty. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Looks like a good idea. I actually would prefer to watchlist a separate page. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Done and done. Check it out. Gary King (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Columns are now automatic, so there is no need to add {{multicol-break}} to wherever it needs to be added. Gary King (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Editintro for FLC nominations?

I figure I'd bring this to the attention of FLC and perhaps it may want an editintro, too. It was recently added to FAC, but perhaps it is not needed at FLC; it's really up to the directors because I'm not sure how many improper or malformed nominations come through here typically? Here is the discussion for FAC: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_editintro_for_FAC_nominations Gary King (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm sure FAC gets far more premature nominations than FLC does, but I can't really see the harm in putting a similar notice. The same reasons apply, just on a diminished scope. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

An FL contest

The Rambling Man and I have decided to run an FL-related contest. The trick of it is that entrants will not be allowed to work on any of the most popular topics. Anyone who is interested can find more information here. If you do not want to enter, then you can always review the entries that the contestants submit, that way the contest won't get delayed by the process. -- Scorpion0422 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Will there be any copyeditors volunteering to help with the contest entries? In my experience, it is often one of the biggest stalling points of an FLCs...trying to find someone to copyedit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Copy-editing usually isn't a problem for most FLCs since there isn't a lot of text, and any MoS or prose problems can be identified and fixed during the nomination fairly easily. Most of the problems tend to come from table formatting, other features, and whatnot. There are exceptions (like List of Naruto characters that needs copy-editing due to the sheer amount of prose), but most of the time, it isn't an issue. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)
My plan is to ask some of the regulars who don't enter to help out with that. And just a small note, entrants will be able to select their topics starting tomorrow at noon (GMT). -- Scorpion0422 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Ugh.. I'll be in bed.. that's 4.00am where I am. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)
Perhaps I could push it back so that it will be more fair to North Americans (but still be convenient for Europeans) how about 6:00 PM GMT? -- Scorpion0422 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)
That's reasonable. 11:00 AM U.S. Pacific Time for me. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)
It would be better, but I'm not sure how the Australians and NZers would like it! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Easy solution: as far as I can tell (which isn't easy because not every user advertises their location) there aren't any entrants (yet) from outside of Europe or NA. -- Scorpion0422 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Then 6pm sounds good to me then. BTW, Sephiroth, I'm pretty sure 6pm GMT is 10am PDT. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
UTC is the normal system. TONY (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Prose problems can be identified and fixed during the nomination fairly easily". No, FL nominations should not be made unless the nominator is satisfied that the prose already satisfies the criteria; see Cr. 1. FLC is not conceived as a fixit programs—a place to finish off the prose—even if some fixing usually occurs as a result of reviewers' comments. IMO, the standards of prose in nominations are generally not good enough. TONY (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

double-image template

First I knew of its existence when TRL suggested it at the NASA nomination. I wonder whether its use shouldn't be encouraged where column crush results from the squeezing in at the right of just a couple of images, which might be effectively relocated with the template in the "Key" subsection above. TONY (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is this template? (Please save me the trouble of research to figure out what you are talking about. [wink]) --Orlady (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the {{double image}} template, currently used at List of NASA Administrators (after my suggestion)... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that template. It's a useful thing for list creators to know about, but I don't think it should be highlighted as a "recommended feature" of some sort. If used in the "wrong" situations, it could produce pretty dreadful results. When it was used in Flag flying days of Norway during that list's FLC discussion, I thought it detracted from the article, rather than enhancing it. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's all my fault, I've seen it used from time to time and it worked. In the case of the NASA article, my screen settings are such that the two images crept over a couple of section boundaries which wasn't great. It was just an idea. If it's so loathed then I will refrain from mentioning its existence in future FLCs, I hadn't realised! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this being used in the table; only in the lead image. And it looks fine to me. Gary King (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, I've never suggested its use in a table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
So I don't get why there's talk about it affecting section headers or the table or anything else? The only thing near it is text that wraps around it. Gary King (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Tony's just being cautious that people don't start using it "willy-nilly". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

← Now that it's been brought up, a lot more people are aware of it though! :p Gary King (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


How did this get promoted?

List of highways in Warren County, New York includes an unsourced, incomplete list of county routes (the one part of the page that's not mostly redundant to list of state highways in New York). Was this an oversight, or are FL standards really that low? (I'm not really a fan of the creation of lists like this, but others presumably think they're at least fun to make if not useful.) --NE2 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't the right place to complain about the quality of individual FLs. I suggest working with the nominator on the talk page and trying to improve it. If you still aren't satisfied after that, then take it to WP:FLRC. However, since it was recently promoted it is immune for removal for a period of time. -- Scorpion0422 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Now the list of county routes has been commented out, while makes it even worse than having an incomplete list. Is FL a way to label good lists or a "gold star" to give nominators? If the former (which it should be), I'd think it would be pretty clear that it doesn't pass in its current state. This is also a question about the process - how did this get through with a glaring problem? --NE2 00:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes this kind of stuff slips through (it happens in every process, not just this one). My guess would be that all of the reviewers simply assumed that all of the table columns were covered by a source. If you feel that strongly that it should be removed, then you could try taking it to WP:FLRC. -- Scorpion0422 00:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not only the lack of a source, but the fact that the list of county routes is incomplete. --NE2 00:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the diffs, the list of county routes was added after the article received its star from Gimmebot. ([8]) by an editor who had never contributed to the article before. ([9]) and it is in a vastly different state now to when it was promoted. ([10]) Some of the unsourced statements are being addressed, it seems, and I'll hold my hand up and say yes, I assumed that ref 2 covered the dates. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, guys: in my view, this is just the place to complain about the quality of promoted FLs. TONY (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Tony. Not everyone has the confidence to take a list to FLRC, or knows about it, so asking here first is a reasonable step. Perhaps the "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted" needs reworded to allow it if new evidence is presented (an opposing reason that wasn't noticed during FLC, presented by someone who didn't participate in the FLC) or if the article has seriously deteriorated since promotion. Though I agree with Scorpion that working with the nominator could be all that's required and avoid the overhead of an FLRC discussion. Colin°Talk 08:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(←)I also don't think this a bad place to discuss these things. I'm happy to hold my hands up and state that I had assumed the reviewers who supported had checked the list for completeness. I also concur with Colin and Scorpion that to avoid an FLRC we ought to first discuss this with the nominator. I would also encourage people to continue to scrutinise the nominations and bring concerns up here or on my (or Scorpion's) talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As an update, the article was worked on well, and is now probably a good definition of complete. And NE2, to answer your complaint, this FL was and is to be for a FT.Mitch32contribs 11:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Urgent box is messed up still

When transcluded on WP:FLC, the columns are still weird. See Image:Urgent box.jpg, but do it quickly cause it's a copyrighted screenshot and will be deleted in a few days. -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's set to only use half of the screen. It looks fine on my browser, but I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it fine now?--Crzycheetah 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought Matthew had a strange browser problem at first, but now the story unfolds itself... basically, it was fine until this edit was made. This next edit was made to "fix" the problem that the former edit caused, which was to add columns on top of columns. I originally used the CSS method of creating columns so they didn't have to be added manually every time the list of backlogged items was updated, but of course, it's up to the people who edit the page to determine which way is more convenient. Gary King (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't fine until that Scorpion's edit. The backlog did not have any columns and it was getting too long, so Scorpion added the columns manually. When he added them, I assume your method doubled the number of columns.--Crzycheetah 05:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That means the browser you are using does not support CSS columns. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
then what's the use of CSS if there are browsers that don't support it. --Crzycheetah 06:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's more a question of which browsers support which parts of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS); it's often pick-and-choose. CSS has many advantages over hard-coded HTML, which I won't delve into now because it's been done before. CSS3 is the current version number; the browsers that support it can be found at Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS)#CSS_version_support. Gary King (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Column alignment

Something has been bothering me for some time, and I just now had the idea to bring it up here. The majority of lists nominated here use the default text alignment for columns in tables. That is, most columns are left-aligned without much thought. This might seem nitpicky, but I think format-wise this is a mistake that is usually left unresolved. To the best of my knowledge, columns should be aligned as follows:

  • Text: left
  • Dates: left
  • Years: center
  • Rank: center
  • Cumulative data: right
  • Other data: center
  • References (in-line citations): center

I don't know if that's an exhaustive list of all the types of content that is put into tables, but I think it's pretty close.

So, to unfairly pick on one current FLC (since it seems to have most of the types of content mentioned above), take a look at List of New York Islanders head coaches. I think this stuff particularly applies to sports articles, since they tend to include alot different types of info. If you compare that list to something like a baseball card (ie this one), you can see some pretty obvious differences between the way the article does it and the established way of doing this stuff. IE. Cumulative stats (like number of home runs, games coached, wins, losses, averages, etc) are right aligned, text left aligned, etc.

Maybe I'm being a little nitpicky, but I'd like to see lists kept to high standards, like most of us here. Drewcifer (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a mess, but there are plenty of people who do it right, too. Drewcifer, what is meant by "Other data"? Numbers or prose, because if it's prose in a "Description" column, it should be left-aligned. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was other numerical data that's not cumulative. So like chart positions. Or maybe a player's jersey number or something like that. Drewcifer (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
FLC is the place to insist the everyone do it right, surely? And I'm concerned at the issue of window widening: most users won't widen their window when they visit a FL, yet the placement of pics to the right of tables often assumes that they will, am I right? Am I the first to jump up and down about this matter? TONY (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hehe. I think it all depends on the list. I suppose there are some where the pictures squash the table so it looks ugly, but I'm equally sure that there will be some tables with only a few, and naturally narrow columns where it makes sense to put images down the right side of the page. Which lists were you thinking in particular? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) So getting back to the columns thing (focus people! =) ), is there an MOS on this we can refer to? Or can/should we make one ourselves? Drewcifer (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether my browser/monitor-size/bother-to-widen-window issues matter at large (and the related matter of squashing in pics to the right of main tables that are hungry for horizontal space). They do seem important to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Unsure about mentioning in the criteria (possibly a mention under 6, if at all), but convince me at least that nominators and reviewers shouldn't take it more seriously. TONY (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said above in the "Layout query" section, articles in general should not be squished for screens of 1024x768 at the minimum. Gary King (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Gary, rather than the resolution (1024 × 768) it's more an issue of how large the window is when a visitor opens the list, which I presume will be the same size as already established for all windows opened by their browser. Stretch the window size and the text in a table will automatically spread; thus, at large size, many but not all wrapping/squashing issues disappear—but who plays with their window size, or knows that they need to? On my Safari browser, if you change the size manually for a WP window, it opens subsequent windows at that size (for all sites, or just for WP? I haven't experimented). I presume that most people see WP's list-articles at a reasonably small size, and this is what I think we should assume when formatting tables, don't you? TONY (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
So what is that "reasonably small size"? As a web developer, it's assumed that the smallest size users browse websites is 1024x768; perhaps as a multitasker, you (understandably) use a smaller screen size so you can have other windows on your screen, but most people don't change their browser's size, so it is left at the default of being maximized. Also, both you and I are in the minority, as Mac users; Macs' concept of "maximize" is different from Windows, which maximizes to fill the entire screen, unlike Safari on the Mac. Gary King (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
These things I didn't know. But I wonder whether they change anything WRT the importance of nominators' attending to column widths ... TONY (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[year]–present

Advice requested WRT to this usage. I've come across it a number of times, most recently at the bottom of this table. For the same reason we insist on phrases such as "as of 2008", we need to orientate readers in the future to when "the present" is, since that guy isn't going to remain coach forever. I can think only of a footnote with "as of [year]"; any better ideas? Should this be part of our interpretation of MOS policy on chronological vagueness? TONY (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a footnote would be the simplest solution - or alternatively for lists like that, a recommendation that the lead contains a sentence along the lines of "As of 2008, Joe Bloggs is the current head coach of the 76ers..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_5&oldid=1190124319"