Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Standards change, and they have been changing rather quickly as of late - the date autoformatting issue, the bolding and repetition of the name of the article, etc. Would there be any way to submit a featured list for re-evaluation under the newer, stricter rules? Or just to throw it at the wolves and say, "Be as harsh as you can"? This isn't the same as an FLRC, as I don't want it removed; I doubt it would be, I simply want to bring it up to even higher standards than it was promoted under. This is in re List of Governors of Alabama; should I just renom it under FLC, or...? --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking out loud: It seems to me that Tony the Tiger's "List of the day" project had the potential to be a good venue for critiquing (and improving) FLs that aren't quite up to current standards. The possibility of extra recognition can provide the motivation needed to elicit criticism and get people to improve their articles in response to that criticism. --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If we start nominating FLs at FLC, then the backlog is going to explode; as a result, <sarcasm>The Rambling Man may have a heart attack</sarcasm>. You're right, though, we need to do some type of an evaluation of our FLs, but not at FLC. FLRC isn't the place either because I think nominators have to state what's wrong with the lists. Maybe a new process should be created temporarily? I remember Scorpion made a similar suggestion a while back, but I don't remember what it was exactly.--Crzycheetah 21:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I actually... Perhaps it's time to have a Featured List review process like WP:FAR . -- Scorpion0422 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, although if it doesn't meet the criteria it could just be taken to WP:FLRC. If someone has the time/energy/willingness to bother, it shouldn't be difficult to save them from being demoted. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt the list would be demoted. My point is to bring it up to even higher standards than it was promoted under. I want it to be really torn apart. =p --Golbez (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can remove the Only lists that do not adhere to the featured list criteria should be listed. statement from FLRC and just nominate current FLs for a review at FLRC.--Crzycheetah 02:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see many things wrong with that list to be honest. Dates autoformatting is still entirely optional and so it should not be seen as compulsory either way, simply consistent (which it is). If you have any suggestions for improvement then list them on the talk page or put it up for a peer review so people can make suggestions on how to maintain its featured status. Woody (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

How come FLC is the only like "good/featured" procedure that does not have more enhanced way of nominating the articles, for example with FAC, you place the FAC template at the top and you click the link to make the FAC (which has a preset template and all you need to do is fill in why you are nominating it). But with FLC, we have to manually create it. Can we add a template page like that?--SRX 00:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominating a list isn't exactly difficult. All you do is add ===insert link=== to the top, then fill out your reasons. The reason the FAC page has a template is because they want to make sure the Featured article tools template is added. We don't use that here. -- Scorpion0422 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Well GAN has one to, I just thought it would be easier.--SRX 01:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Many of us think it is simpler NOT to have a template. Nominating a list is only slightly more difficult than posting a message on a talk page. In contrast, templates can be tricky to use, and they have been known to break. --Orlady (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move all featured content pages into the portal namespace

See here. I don't like it, but down the road, I'll probably not care. Just the messenger here. sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award

I was just wondering how Gimmethrow was allowed to promote/not promote lists. I thought only The Rambling Man and Scorpion0422 were allowed to promote/not promote lists. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because Gimmetrow operates the bot which closes FLCs and awards bronze stars. If the bot malfunctions, Gimmetrow fixes it, usually within minutes. In those cases, the lists will appear as if they've been closed by someone other than me or Scorpion. Nothing sinister going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List Questions

(Reposting this here - thanks Scorpion0422!) In a recent Featured List Candidate on notable graduates of a school, the following issues were raised that might be useful to discuss:

  • Inclusion Criteria/Statement of Scope
How should this be specified for a list which consists of a "notable" subset of a whole? Originally, I placed "Notable" in the section title, but a comment stated that was redundant and should be deleted. I ended up including a sentence that stated "...graduated the following notable alumni who made significant contributions to..." and another that ended with "...listed in the roles for which they are most notable" along with a reference to WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#NOTE. The reason people are in this particular list is that they graduated from a particular school and they are notable per standard Wiki criteria. The roles under which they were grouped was an attempt to break the list into pieces of managable size but other groupings are possible.
  • References for each Item in the List
Can a wiki article be used as a reference for an item in the list? I realize wiki is not considered a reliable source, but it seems that Wiki should have some way of reusing or pointing to the reliable references in a given article instead of copying the text. For example, it has been well-documented that Chuck Yeager was the first to break the sound barrier in level flight, and his wiki article has many reliable references to that fact. Must a list of notable pilots repeat the reference(s) or could it simply point to the Yeager article?
I think I found an answer in the archives of this page which states,"A list must be self-supporting; it can't rely on the linked articles for support (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). If there is an overall reference that can support the whole table, then individual citations are not required in that circumstance. They tend to be necessary for dynamic lists." I wasn't the only one confused by this it seems. FLC does mention verifiability, but it may be worth adding this distinction to the criteria. I still think Wiki would benefit from the notion of a "verified" reference to which articles/lists could link rather than making endless copies. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand either question, but regards to your second, because WP can be edited by anybody, and wrong information can be inserted into an article and may be overlooked for days, weeks, or even months, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, you can reuse the sources in those articles at this list ;) A verified reference which articles can link to? Do you mean more than once, in the same article? That can be done by typing
<ref name="NASA">Reference goes here.</ref>, and then whenever you want to reuse that reference, just type <ref name="NASA" />.Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant a verified reference which articles can link to. My thought was to replace the individual copies of references used in articles with a link to a single verified reference. Much like how many articles can link to a single photo rather than duplicate the photo in each article. For example, I added over a hundred references to the List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni and nearly all were duplicates of those on wiki pages to which the list already linked. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it can be done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess it depends on priorities. If verifiable content were as important as properly licensed images, I'll bet Wiki would create similar infrastructure to review and police the content. Each image is scrutinized to ensure a proper license and removed ASAP if not. But we have limited resources and few lawsuits are filed over poorly-sourced content. Skeet Shooter (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FL Review

Matthew reminded me of this concept on my talk today. I did raise it during the big change-over a few months ago when we appointed directors and rewrote the criteria. But people were unhappy with the idea of adopting the binary structure of FAR/C, where articles are nominated for review (FAR), and the director (Marskell) decides many weeks later whether sufficient progress has been made on improving the article to avoid the next stage, FARC, which is a more intense period of soul-searching, or not, followed often or not by defrocking.

I've read the now-archived section of this page on this matter. I agree that we do need a formal review process to update FLs to modern standards. Whenever I open an FL, I find things I don't like (usually breaches of modern criteria).

If people don't like the binary system, may I ask whether the current instructions and procedure are the best way of encouraging contributors to improve their FL? Is the two-week period appropriate?

"Once a list has been nominated on this page for a minimum of two weeks, it will be removed from the list of featured lists if the consensus is to remove."

That statement leaves little room for Dweller or Matthew to do otherwise. I'd have though extensions in time should be readily given where there's a bona fide reason. Is there some way of upping the ante, so to speak, after the two-week mark? Why not a further two weeks in the hot-box after that? We don't want a flood of removal candidates, but we do need a systematic audit of the 700 or so FLs. Perhaps over a next year, a good proportion might have been scrutinised, some of them in FLR. Tony (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I forgot to add that I'd support the idea of no keep/remove declarations until after that two-week deadline. That would underpin the article-improvement ideal at the start. Tony (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Resignation"

Hello everyone. While it saddens me, I must announce my imminent departure from the post of FL director. In a couple of months time I will be on an extended wiki-break for up to five months and will not be able dedicate the time and energy required to keep WP:FLC ticking over. I realise that I have only been in the post for a few months and hope that I've contributed positively to it during that time but this break is unavoidable and hence so is my resignation.

I'll continue in the post until a replacement can be found and will continue to review each list up until my break. I'd like to thank the regular reviewers (you know who you are) who I've called on to help with reviews and opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for all your time and effort that you have invested in FL over these past few months. Woody (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My thanks also. And best of luck on your new efforts. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this is a loss. Thank you for your talent and hard work. Tony (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help! I'm sorry to see you go. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go TRM. You've been doing a great job the past few months as both a closer and reviwer and you helped get the process ticking again. What kind of timeframe are we looking at? Should we try and find a replacement as soon as possible, or wait a few months? -- Scorpion0422 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the kind words. Scorpion, I'll be off-wiki late October so whenever's best. I suppose sooner rather than later... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your hard work! In any case, is TRM going to choose his replacement, or are we going to have elections? IMO, the former is preferable, but just asking. sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think people need to declare their interest - it does consume some time and energy and it really needs to be handled by someone who actually wants to do it...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah; I wonder whether either of the delagats for the removals page is interested. They scored highly in the election. I'd rather avoid another election if possible. Tony (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Really sorry to hear that, TRM. I hope your extended break doesn't turn into a retirement. In reply to Tony, I would consider it -- FLRC doesn't take up too much time or effort. Whoever does become the director or even thinks about it should also take note that Gimmetrow is considering retiring Gimmebot, which closes GAN, FLC, FAC, PR, etc etc, and updates article talk pages and a whole bunch of other things which will have to be done manually. He wants to go back to editing. Gimmebot only started doing FLCs about six months ago, and as Scorpion can attest, it's not fun. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize Gimmebot might be retired – I thought it didn't take up that much time to run, especially considering its infinite usefulness. No more elections – please! I'd love to see either of the FLRC guys take the helm. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. You'll be missed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Have a fun break, but come back soon! –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Source checks

About two weeks ago, User:The Rambling Man asked me to step over here and start checking sources like I do at FAC. I told him at the time I'd be traveling, but I'm home now, and if the general folks around here would be interested, I could try to fit FLCs into my schedule. Depends on if that'd be welcome or not over here. I've never actually done much with FLs, so I'd be a babe in the woods on the other criteria... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have enough time, I know it would be very much appreciated. I know that your work at FAC is truly appreciated so any repeat here would be great. Being a specialist on one criteria is fine. Woody (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be amazing if you could help out with source checking; several people already do it so the load is already lightened, and to add to that, each list usually has several general sources and a small number of specific sources. And plus, a lot of lists often use the same sources, so that should also help. Gary King (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing can be as bad as John McCain or Michael Jackson, both of which are just huge for sources. So is the general rule that there are "general" sources and specific ones? And the general ones are considered to hold true for the entire article? You can tell I don't do lists much... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'll give my personal experience on this: I don't think any of my lists use general references, because my lists contain information compiled from different sources. So in that case, it's like a typical FAC. However, several lists do use "general" references; an example is this recently promoted list: List of Minnesota Twins managers. There is a "General references" which is really just used to back up the other references; they are pretty much always supplementary, meaning they are just there to back up specific references, which every list should still have. Gary King (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Usually, lists contain "general" references for the material in the list. For instance, for List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances, there is a general reference for the list, and specific references for the rest of the material (usually the lead and any notes, if any). It varies from list to list though. Some lists don't have a general reference that covers the whole list, and will instead just have references sprinkled throughout the list (or have a column for it, many of Gary's lists, such as List of acquisitions by Yahoo!, do this). In the end, as long as the material is adequately referenced, whether through a general reference or lots of specific references, then it's fine. And yeah, your help would be greatly appreciated here =) sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Your help would be greatly appreciated Ealdgyth. Thanks for remembering! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Barring any opposition, I'll probably start checking this weekend. (I have an article up at FAC and class tonight, so it'll be a bit busy until probably Sunday...) I also plan to get back involved with GAN and need to do my PR runs sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, this is a generous move on your part that will bring a new (and required) dimension to our review process. Thank you very much. Tony (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

ARGH! Where's my "link checker tool" to check for dead links?? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the rest of them tomorrow. That should take care of the backlog. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing question

While brainstorming on a list (namely, separating the winners/nominees from Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor into a list), I was wondering whether this type of sourcing would be suitable. Using this search tool (the website is maintained by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, so it's as official as it gets), one can simply select "Actor -- Supporting Role", click "Search", and get a full listing of all the winners and nominees for the Best Supporting Actor award. Is this suitable for a general source? If so, do I simply write in directions for using the source? sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the results page will expire? I'd use the results' link as a general reference, granted of course, the link won't expire.--Crzycheetah 09:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The link does expire after a while, hence the question. sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if the link didn't expire, WP:ELNO says "avoid links to the results pages of search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds". IMO references are more important than external links so we shouldn't use them. The question is does that search tool fall under that bracket, but if not, I think the results of the search do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Search results are automatically generated so I don't think it's wise to use them as references in general. I would suggest using an online archiving tool to create an archive of the page then using that as the reference. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting change

Dear nominators and reviewers

Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.

[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.

Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to FL Criterion 5 (style guidelines). We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guideline on within-article consistency here, which states that:

  • Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
  • Dates in article references should all have the same format.

In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes (and check that the raw dates that are left use a consistent format". A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. We need to be careful with lists that have the date-sorting templates (dts and dts2), for which we await the tweaking of the script to accommodate. Probably best to hold off on those until done (see section above).

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script


Instructions for installation

  • EITHER: If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
  • OR: If you don't have a monobook.js page, create one using this title:
[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]
Then click on "edit this page" and paste in at the top the "importScript" string you see three lines above here.
  • Hit "Save page".
  • Refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).
  • You're ready to start.


Applying the script—it's very simple

  • Click on "edit this page". You'll see a tab called "all dates" at top-right. Click on it; this will immediately remove the date autoformatting in the edit-window.
  • The diff will automatically appear under the edit-window. Check through the changes you're making before saving them. See Note 1 below
  • Until the edit summary is reworked, consider copy-pasting in this one: [[User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js|Script]]-assisted dates; see [[WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting|MOSNUM]]
  • Click on "Save page": it's done.


Afterwards

  • Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to fight it, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. Do not EVER edit-war over date autoformatting; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.

Notes

  • [1] Treats only square-bracketed dates. The script removes square brackets only, which mostly involves the main text and footnotes; it's acceptable for citation-generated dates to be of a different format. Occasionally the removal of DA will reveal inconsistencies in formatting of what were square-bracketed dates, and with the reference section where citation generated dates are often used. These should be corrected manually before saving the actions of the script; alternatively, post a note on the talk page asking editors to audit the date formats, and draw their attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, and the guideline on within-article consistency.
  • [2] Date-sorting templates in tables. As of August 24, a minor tweak must still be made to the script (which will update automatically for all users who have transcluded it as above), to deal with the column-sorting template in tables. Please be aware of this in relation to Featured Lists and the like (i.e., hold off there until it's fixed). The "dts" and "dts2" templates are at issue. Should be fixed soon.
  • [3] Antiquity-related articles. Articles on topics such as ancient Rome should be treated with caution, since the script removes year-links as well, and some editors may argue that there's a case for retaining the simple year and century links from ancient times (e.g., 212). It's better to ask first in these cases. In any case, such articles contain few if any full dates.
  • [4] WikEd. For those of you who've installed WikEd, it must be disabled to run the script.

Tony (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Tony. I'd missed that one. With regards to references, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} etc, all tell users to enter dates in ISO format, and the templates automatically wikilink and autoformat them. I don't see how we can ensure that the date format for references is the same as the date format in the body of the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
We can't do that yet, and MOSNUM says, in any case, that it's unnecessary:
  • Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
  • Dates in article references should all have the same format.
I suspect that in the medium term, the community might want to work towards utter consistency between these two basic segments of an article, but to do that will require time and collaboration with the developers of the citation templates. Tony (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New director

I've had a quick chat with User:Matthewedwards about taking over my role in about three weeks time. Matthew is keen to do this as long as there's a consensus to support him taking the position. I'm not suggesting we go through the whole "election" process, but if people could indicate their support for Matthew below then we'll be able to quickly establish a consensus. Thanks.

Okay, well a quick thank you to everyone for responding quickly. I think we have irrefutable consensus that Matthew will be a more-than suitable replacement for me. There remains the issue of FLRC director, a position which, ideally, would not be held by one of the FL directors. Since we didn't have "an election" or that post, I think it'd be useful to see if there's any interest from anyone in taking over from Matthew in that position? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your backing, everyone. Now, what does this job pay? :) With regards to FLRC, if someone does want to take it over from me, just step forward. It's a pretty low-volume assignment and hasn't hindered me in anything else I've been doing, so I doubt it would for anyone else either. Regarding FLC director, I'm taking a vacation for a couple of weeks in a couple of days, so I don't know what my internet status will be during that time. After that I'll be ready to get into the swing of things. Thanks again, everyone Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I strongly question his judgment and sensibility after reading his top 10 songs list, but he also includes Lost among his top 10 TV shows, so he must be doing something right. I strongly support him as a co-director. As for a replacement as FLRC delegate, it wouldn't hurt to have a second person working there, so is anyone interested in the job? -- Scorpion0422 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Minimum number of items?

I would like to inquire about the minimum number of items a featured list is supposed to contain, as there seems to be pretty much confusion around this issue. Currently, the official featured list criteria do not set specify a minimum number of items (unlike, for instance, the featured topic criteria, which explicitly state that a featured topic should contain at least three different items). However, several featured list candidates have been rejected recently, with the main argument being that they were too short. This was the case with the List of heads of state of Gabon as well as the List of presidents of the Russian Federation. Reviewers stated each time that there was unofficial consensus that an FLC should contain at least 10 items. However, when exactly did that consensus emerge? And if there is consensus indeed, then shouldn't the 10-item minimum be explicitly included in the featured list criteria?

The situation is all the more confusing since some lists with less than 10 items have been recently promoted. For instance, the List of heads of state of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire technically contains only six individuals; however it managed to reach the 10-item minimum by inflating itself and including the same person several times (the slightest title change leads to a person's re-inclusion in the list, even though a simple footnote highlighting the title change would have been enough). Is this acceptable?

Sephiroth BCR told me that the 10-item minimum was a general guideline, but that there were some exceptions to it. If so, then what are these exceptions? For instance, if a country has had only 8 presidents over the course of its history, would this still be insufficient for it to pass an FLC? I really hope we can set things straight once and for all, so that future nominators know what to expect when it comes to the minimum number of items their lists should contain. BomBom (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There were numerous discussions about this, here are some links: Size of lists, Nominations of lists with small scopes, and length. The 10 item minimum is not included in the criteria because, as you already noted, there are some exceptions that allow a list of less than 10 items be featured. The main exception is page content. If there is more information about those items other than the bare minimum, then that page may become featured.--Crzycheetah 03:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

linking and tables

You may wish to have a quick look here at CONTEXT. Tony (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We follow that "guideline" here at FLC for over a year now.--Crzycheetah 20:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Crzycheetah is right, been like that for a while now, common sense really, and that discussion is incredibly stale: October 2007? Woody (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated nominations?

On this FLC, User:Killervogel5 felt disturbed by the fact that I re-nominated a list five hours after the first FLC closed. Since this is the first time I have ever heard about this, I just want to make sure if there are policies about this. If so, then how long do I have to wait before I am allowed to renominate? Thanks.—Chris! ct 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Once all concerns raised at the last FAC are dealt with, you should be able to renominate it immediately, but it is not the best etiquette to renominate it as quickly as you did following the first debate's archiving. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What should I do then? Should I wait?—Chris! ct 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
24 hours? Gary King (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will wait 24 hrs next time. Thanks —Chris! ct 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

dts and dts2: request for consensus

I believe that these are the templates we use to enable click-sorting of data in table columns. Apparently one has been deprecated (the 2?) and the other is preferred. Can people enlighten me?

User:Lightmouse has asked that consensus be gathered here for the building into a script of the automatic removal of one of them (the 2, I guess). Is this acceptable to everyone? I'm very new to this, so don't expect deep insights from me. More info at my talk page. Thanks Tony (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Gary King to ask the state of play with {{dts2}}, there's a notice on the template page itself declaring the template is deprecated, but it is still in widespread use nonetheless. Perhaps Gary can shed some light on the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding and recollection of the situation is this: dts previously worked on "DD-MM-YYYY" parameters; dts2 was created as an interim measure on a "YYYY-MM-DD" parameter format and all instances of dts changed to dts2 at that time; and now that dts itself has been modified to be "YYYY-MM-DD", dts2 is now redundant. I presume that all instances of dts2 can now be changed to dts – if I'm right, and Gary King will no doubt tell us, perhaps a bot will be found to do it. BencherliteTalk 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I deprecated the template earlier this year, in February I believe. {{dts}} uses the YYYY-MM-DD format for inputting dates, while {{dts2}} uses the DD-MM-YYYY format. Therefore, a bot would have to change {{dts2|30|1|2008}} to {{dts|2008|1|30}}. It is important to note that the second argument can also be a month name, like January. Simply treat this as the second argument without worrying if it is a number or a word when using a bot to replace. This should be an easy task for a bot; it just requires some regular expressions to correctly replace the template; like in Ruby: replace 
\{{dts2\|(.*?)\|(.*?)\|(.*?)}}
with 
{{dts|$3|$2|$1}}
Done! Gary King (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Supplying the regex is very welcome indeed. I have included it in my script (it is available for anyone to use - just ask). For those of you with the script: if you press the 'part dates' tab, it will convert the 'dts2' format into the 'dts' format. If you press the 'all dates' tab, it will add 'link=off'. Tony, please test this and let me know if it works for you. Lightmouse (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The change works like a charm. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you certainly can't apply the "all dates" tab—see the first table here. So maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you need to first apply "part dates" to change "dts2" to the now acceptable "dts". That also removes single-year links. Then which tab to remove the date autoformatting? Tony (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you did not misunderstand, you found a bug. Thanks for letting me know. I have fixed it now. If you press the 'all dates' tab, it runs 'part dates' functions first, so you don't have to press both tabs. Please try again. Lightmouse (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong place to post this, but hopefully someone might see it :-) Earlier today Lightbot was converting various list articles, including the FL List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, from using {{dts2}} to use {{dts}}. This had the effect of changing the date format as seen by the reader from the appropriate international day-first format to the (in my view, for a list relating to an English topic) inappropriate US month-first format. AFAIK it's still a part of the WP:DATE#Full date formatting MoS that date style shouldn't be arbitrarily changed (consistency, national ties, retaining existing format). Is there a parameter which can be applied to dts to determine output format? there doesn't seem to be one in the documentation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Struway2, I was just responding to your comment on my talk page when I saw your posting here. Lightbot followed the guidance stated in this section here. I am sure somebody will come along shortly and provide an answer to this. Lightmouse (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's me thinking that DTS2 was used to render dates in the international date format, as opposed to DTS which did it in the US format. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What is happening is that {{dts}} by default links dates, and linked dates are formatted based on user preference. When link=off is applied, dates are unlinked and so appear in a fixed format; in this case, they are in US format. Personally, I don't mind what format they're in; the important thing is that it's a format that everyone agrees on. I would prefer to change it only after several people have agreed on a specific format; I'd like input specifically from people such as Lightmouse and Tony1, since I haven't been keeping up-to-date on the latest date formatting discussions. I posted to Tony's talk page at User_talk:Tony1#Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates.23dts_and_dts2:_request_for_consensus explaining the situation. Gary King (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that whether the date output by the template is linked or not, the important thing is for it to be in a format appropriate to the topic, as per the current MoS, to benefit the majority of readers who don't have date preference. US dates for US topics, and international-format dates for topics related to countries where that format is preferred. If there is to be only one date-sorting template, then obviously there has to be a default format, but equally obviously, there has to be a choice. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is getting interesting. I tolerate almost all unambiguous formats, including ISO and some that are banned by the MOS such as 'September 11th'. I also tolerate inconsistency within articles. My dislike of linked dates outranks any format preferences. The problem here is just the same as that of the citation templates. My only suggestion would be to add an ouput format parameter to the dts template. If such a parameter existed, I could modify my existing handy tab script so that you guys could use it to force all 'dts' dates in an article into either US or non-US format. With a bit more work, such a tool could be extended to force all things that look like dates into one format (but it would not be able to avoid quotes and titles). Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we have two DTS templates, one for the US date format, and one for the international format, that can have linking and autoformatting turned off if desired? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
LM, tables are typically the central part of lists, and are more obviously part of the main text than ref lists, both in terms of their upper location, size in proportion to the whole article, and close relationship to the lead. While ref lists are demonstrably separate from the main text (despite their being intertwined through ref numbers in the main text) I think I'd have trouble with date outputs that were international in the lead, then US in the first column. It's no big deal, but Gary has hinted that a solution is at hand; i.e., the ability to choose either format in plain black text. There's also Matthew's suggestion that a different template for international format be produced, of the type that TRM already thought we had (just another instnace of how blasted date autoformatting jinxes us, and how WYKIWYG—What You Key in Is What You Get) is better for all. Tony (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
We did have a template that output in international format; that's what {{dts2}} did. For my purposes – enabling date sorting in tables in non-US-related articles – all it needed to get rid of all the blue was to implement a no-link parameter that would stop the addition of square brackets. Like {{sortname}} has. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

←Gary, is Struway's suggestion the best way to go? Is it going to be possible? Tony (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long. Anyways, done at Template:Dts/examples (use format=dmy). Gary King (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

  • continued migration of dts2 and/or dts to the new format - this can be done by Lightbot if there is documented consent
  • modification of dts when dates in the rest of the article are delinked by script

Suggested regex as before would be most welcome. Lightmouse (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't you just use your existing script, which searches for linked dates, but remove the search for the "[[" and instead search for plain dates like "January 1, 2008"; if the script finds one, then modify the dts to be unlinked? Gary King (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to write code like that. In any case, it is very common to find a single unlinked date amongst many linked dates. However, that is not the issue for me. If you say 'make it so', I can convert all instances of dts2 to dts with format=dmy using Lightbot when it gets approval (please support my application for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3). Then the dts2 template will be unused and I know what to do from there. Lightmouse (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the code so the monobook script can do it. There are 252 instances of the dts2 template to convert to dts. I could convert them all with Lightbot in 25 minutes if I had approval. Please support my approval for Lightbot so that it can continue to work with things like this or other dates and units issues: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of date autoformatting

Nominators are reminded that date autoformatting is now deprecated by MOSNUM, and may be interested to know that the script for its removal has been significantly improved over the past two weeks. It now preserves sortable table columns while delinking the dates within them, which is of particularly importance here. The script should be used only in association with human oversight. The info package on the installation and use of the script is here:

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script


Instructions for installation

  • EITHER: If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:
importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');
  • OR: If you don't have a monobook.js page, create one using this title:
[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]
Then click on "edit this page" and paste in at the top the "importScript" string you see three lines above here.
  • Hit "Save page".
  • Refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).
  • You're ready to start.


Applying the script—it's very simple

  • Go to an article and determine whether US or international format is used. (For this purpose, it's best to have selected "no preferences" for dates in your user preferences, which will display the raw date formats that our readers see. Otherwise, you'll need to check in edit mode.) Occasionally, you'll see that the wrong format is used (check MOSNUM's guidance on this carefully).
  • Click on "edit this page". You'll see the list of script commands under "what links here". Click on either "delink all dates to mdy" (US format) or "delink all dates to mdy" (international format).
  • The diff will automatically appear. Check through the changes you're making before saving them. If there are problems, fix them manually before saving, or cancel.
  • Leave a note at the article talk page if editors need to negotiate which format to use, or need to be alerted to any other date-related issues.
  • Click on "Save page": it's done.


Afterwards

  • Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to resist or revert, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. NEVER edit-war over date autoformatting; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.


Notes

  • [1] Treats only square-bracketed dates. The script removes square brackets only, which mostly involves the main text and footnotes; it's acceptable for citation-generated dates to be of a different format, particularly ISO (which must not be used in the main text).
  • [2] Piped year-links ([[1989 in baseball|1989]]). On purpose, the script will not touch these.
  • [3] Date-sorting templates in tables. As of August 23, a minor tweak must be made to the script (which will update automatically), to deal with the column-sorting template in tables. Please be aware of this in relation to Featured Lists and the like (i.e., hold off there until it's fixed). The "dts" and "dts2" templates are at issue, and can be identified in display mode by a small clickable item at the top of a column. This should be fixed soon.

Tony (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Deprecated" is a strong word Tony, not one backed up by consensus over at MOSNUM as far as I can see. That page is currently protected from editing to enforce discussion on the issue. As far as I can see, the issue is still under debate. Woody (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The manual says:

  • The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated.

It does not seem to me to be quote an MoS word here. The alternate phrase 'should be avoided' would be fine with me. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your second sentence, but your first sentence is open to debate. The issue is being actively discussed at MOSNUM and its nice shiny new autoformatting subpage and as such the Manual of Style is not in a stable state at the moment, hence the full protection of the page. So I disagree with the notion that it must be wiped from all FL/FLCs at this time. Woody (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my second sentence is missing something. It should have said It does not seem to me to be unreasonable to quote an MoS word here. If the wording is not quite right, or if acting on the wording should be constrained, then the MoS can (and should) be changed. Perhaps it is best if we both discuss this in the MoS talk page. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A FL IRC channel

Since both myself and Matthewedwards are occasionally on IRC, I decided to try a FL channel. My hope is that users can use it for reviews, opinions and such. Of course, it could just as easily not work out, but I will try and be on it whenever I'm on IRC. The channel is #wikipedia-en-FL. -- Scorpion0422 23:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be in there, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not have a "Featured content" Wikipedia channel instead? Gary King (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot: please support latest approval

Many of you will know of the activities of Lightbot. It has touched over 140,000 articles with edits relating to dates and units. I've made a new request for bot approval that is largely a clarification/extension of two previous approvals and has wording that should be easier to understand. The bot approvals group is not necessarily aware of what Lightbot does so I would be grateful if you could add a few words in support at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. I would also be happy to answer any questions here or on my talk page. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The FLRC delegate position - anyone interested?

So Matthewedwards is now a director-in-waiting and that could leave a spot open for a new delegate at WP:FLRC. However, we were unsure if Dweller needed a co-delegate there, but with him now being a bureaucrat, a second delegate would be useful there. So, this is the chance for anyone to declare any sort of interest in the position and we'll see where to go from there. Remember, you don't have to be extremely active there, you just need a good knowledge of FL policy (neither Dweller or Matthew were overly active there when they became delegates). -- Scorpion0422 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested if Dweller wants some help. I haven't worked a ton at WP:FLRC, but I have saved an article and commented a few times, and of course I understand FL policy. I think it would be a fulfilling project for me, but Ill let other weigh in. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I also want to point out that I have been gone for a month due to no internet connection if anyone was wondering where I have been. I am back though :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering where Gonzo went. Welcome back! I think you'd make a great director. Gary King (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (x2)! Yeah, I moved and lost internet connection for most of August :( But I have it back :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
After seeing you almost single-handedly rescue FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, you get my support too. Shows that you're not afraid to step up to the plate on a list you've had no prior involvement. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The music WikiProject deprecates such "year in blah|year" links, and the film WikiProject appears about to. The problem is that no reader will click on a single year-link, justifiably thinking it will be useless.

A related problem is the blue blizzard of single years that sometimes occurs in a whole table column, each an Easter egg.

The simple remedy is to link the first "year in blah", preferably in the lead, and to reword so that it's explicit, so that readers know what it is and can, of course, access the whole set of such articles through that prominent link. Here's an example in a current FLC:

Wiki before:

The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was the first since 2001 in which no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, and the first since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed during October.

Nowiki before:

The [[2006 Atlantic hurricane season]] was the first since [[2001 Atlantic hurricane season|2001]] in which no [[hurricane]]s made landfall in the [[United States]], and the first since [[1994 Atlantic hurricane season|1994]] that no tropical cyclones formed during October.

Wiki after:

The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season was the first since 2001 in which no hurricanes made landfall in the United States, and the first since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed during October.</nowiki>

Nowiki after:

The [[2006 Atlantic hurricane season]] was [[2001 Atlantic hurricane season|the first since 2001]] in which no [[hurricane]]s made landfall in the United States, and the first since 1994 that no tropical cyclones formed during October.

I suggest that this be made standard practice in all subsequent FLCs. The script that removes date autoformatting can remove hidden links if you hit the right button. This can remove a blizzard of bright blue in an entire table column in just a few seconds. Tony (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A better solution to the above, and one that I thought had been in use for a long time, was to say "... was the first since the [[2001 Atlantic hurricane season|2001 season]]...". --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

OK, I have some questions (be nice I'm new here!). What is considered consensus when it comes to promoting to FL status? Is it permissable to pop in a quick note on the talk pages of wikiprojects that are associated with the list that could be featured or would that be considered canvassing!? Thanks for any help. ;) Best, --Cameron* 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is encouraged that you inform relevant wikiprojects of an FLC, as long as you don't outright ask for support. -- Scorpion0422 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few projects have noticeboards (such as this one), so I don't see anything wrong with leaving a heads-up on the project's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you! --Cameron* 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lists

Hello all. Just a quick note to say that since Featured topics have now incorporated the concept of Good Topics, I've asked the question as to why we can't have "Good lists" which would cover those grey-area lists like lists with only half-a-dozen items on. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Good lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Laziness/repetition in names

I think we've gotten a bit lazy with names for lists. Examples from the current crop of FLCs:

  • Nashville Sounds seasons
  • List of Bryan Adams awards

Lists used to be, I think, in the format of "List of X of Y". So in this case, it would be "List of seasons of the Nashville Sounds". But even worse is the second. When I see "Bryan Adams awards", I think "awards named after, or awarded by, Bryan Adams", not "Awards received by Bryan Adams". So in this case, this should be "List of awards received by Bryan Adams". But right now, we seem to be trending towards "X's Ys" or "List of X's Ys."

Of course, then we get to another interesting question: We have no articles that begin with "Article about". So could the above be shortened to, "Seasons of the Nashville Sounds"? "Awards received by Bryan Adams"? The first sounds a little awkward but the second seems spot on. So some similar ones in FLC:

  • List of Denver Nuggets head coaches
  • List of Governors of Alaska
  • List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records

Would be...

  • Head coaches of the Denver Nuggets
  • Governors of Alaska
  • Liverpool F.C. statistics and records

I see some on FLC now that contradict each other; we presently have both "List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records" and "Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records". I don't know if I've ever seen people bring up this trend in their FLC voting, but I know I'm about to start. I'd like to not be screaming at a brick wall, however; does anyone else see a problem with the naming of lists? I find the first issue here (simplifying from "X of Y" to "X's Ys") far worse than having a "List of" in the title, but perhaps we should start working away from that as well? --Golbez (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the "list of…" part is very important. If I see a page titled "Governors of Alaska", I will expect to see a short paragraph about each governor. The "list of…" part just implies to the readers that the governors are listed one by one. As for the "List of Bryan Adams awards" problem, I agree with you, the title should be changed.--Crzycheetah 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point. Okay, so we keep "List of" where it makes sense. What got me on this was an FLC a few weeks ago, "Mozart's operas". There are several problems with this, and it was eventually renamed "List of operas by Mozart". --Golbez (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The award pages often include nominations too. In fact, a lot of them have more nominations than awards won, so a good name change needs to be thought of for those. Otherwise I agree. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd use "List of ..." only where the title would not be specific enough, which will be a sizeable proportion of (maybe most) cases. Where possible, it's nice to avoid the formulaic. "Blah awards, 1970–89" does not need the formulaic title. Tony (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new co-director for FLRC

Following the discussion above (Wikipedia_talk:FLC#The_FLRC_delegate_position_-_anyone_interested.3F) I formally propose Gonzo fan as co-director.

If anyone has any serious objections or doubts about whether he'll done a good job, please post here in the next few days, otherwise I'll be happy to welcome him on board. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there are no objections, so I guess we've found our new co-delegate. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yay Gary King (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I would be honored, thanks Dweller, Scorpion, Gary, and TRM. I don't know what the situation is with when all the changes in Directors will be, but I am ready to take over whenever. In the coming days I will talk with Dweller and get the low-down on what we will be doing, and maybe theorize on some ideas I had. Thanks again guys! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New FLC director - Matthewedwards

Hello all. Just a quick note to confirm that with immediate effect, I have stepped down from the FL director post to be replaced by a more than adequate replacement in Matthew. I hope I left the FLC process better than I found it and I'm 100% positive that Matthew will do a fantastic job. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be the first to express gratitude. First for the stupendous amount of work TRM has done for FLs. Not just the administration, but the practically omnipresent reviewing, improving and cajoling. Second to Matthew, who'll do a great job. And third, I'm glad TRM can get back to article writing again before he disappears off globetrotting. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
TRM has been doing most of the FLC promotions. I wonder who will be doing more, now: Scorpion or Matthew? Or neither, and the backlog will be really, really huge? :) Gary King (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot TRM, you have done an amazing job! I have the utmost confidence Matthew will do a great job. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work, TRM. You've left some big boots to fill. Gonzofan, I'm sure you'll fill mine without any problems. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much appreciation to TRM and to Matthew and Gonzo who are stepping in. These are critical roles for improving WP's standards, and I can only imagine how much scrutiny and judgement the job requires. Tony (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange process. As I recall, we have *exactly* only one other director of a process on Wiki (at FA) and the directors here were appointed after widely announced polls to assure broad community input. So, now do y'all just pass the title along without broad consensus or discussion outside of FLC? That, along with this recent IRC development, makes me very uncomfortable and lowers the necessary gravitas attached to the delegation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew was confirmed here. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It followed this thread from mid August. It's been a while in the pipeline. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, there is no cabal, no one is out to destroy Wikipedia, IRC is not going to control everything, let's get over this whole disaster scenario you think is going to happen. And contrary to what seems to be your belief, Directors are not God-Kings and we don't need to have a process just for process sake. (see WP:PPP, WP:BURO, WP:TINC, WP:IAR). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy has a legitimate concern—I don't know how many discussions I've seen where someone questions Raul's authority because they don't know how he got his FA director position. It is to Matthew's benefit too that the process leading to his appointment be very transparent, so that he doesn't have to deal with all that *#!@ the first 500 times that someone questions his judgement calls. Luckily for him, this does appear to have been discussed pretty well. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree it was well discussed: at minimum, I wonder why Matthewedwards posted the link about the IRC channel all over Wiki, but no one ever managed to post to WT:FAC about new director elections. And, when one of the first things a new director does is as controversial as taking featured content business to IRC, that's not a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What constitutes well discussed? The FLC regulars basically confirmed him as the new director with practically unanimous support. We don't want a big wiki-wide election; the process should be smooth and quiet. And as for the IRC channel, he's the messenger, not the proposer, so drop the mass conspiracy issue. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, take this in the best possible way. FLC is not FAC's "bitch (#7)." We don't need to go to you guys over at FAC before we do something. If you want to know whats going on over here, by all means watchlist the page. It's really easy. And as Seph BCR, Sandy get over the mass conspiracy, you are directly questioning User:The Rambling Man and User:Matthewedwards, and basically everyone here. Again, I want to stress to you, we do not need to run things by you before we do something. By all means, be involved with the discussion, but do not come complaining if you missed out. Also, stop lumping this whole IRC thing with Matt being a director, all he did was notify the community that there was a channel, which is basically the most responsible thing to do, because it makes the channel more transparent. Please, please stop blowing things out of proportion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact the discussion about a Featured content IRC is taking place at FAC indicates what the FAC regulars think of the rest of the Featured process. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The link about the featured content channel was posted "all over Wiki" (actually the talk pages of all seven Featured content project pages). The discussion about me becoming a FL director was held here because it really doesn't have much to do with FA. By saying what you did, it appears as if you'd like to have complete reign over then entire Featured process. The discussions about a new director were held here, on this talk page, where you or anyone else could have chimed in. It's not like they were conducted on IRC :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Karanaks, I really doubt Sandy is concerned about whether someone questions my judgement! :) The comments left on my talk page are enough to see that. The fact that another Featured content leader has questioned my judgement is enough to give everyone else the green light. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

New Featured content IRC channel

Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to fragment FC discussion onto off-wiki venues, exactly? --erachima talk 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Serious followup about this at WT:FAC: most concerned about what the heck is going on over here at lists lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Where would I request an assessment of a list article I created? It's nowhere near FA or even GA, I just want it assessed at a basic level and to indicate what I need to do to improve it, and I can't seem to find the right place to ask. (for José Mojica Marins filmography). Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Peer Review! If all you want is truly an assessment, and not a review of the list, I would be able to help you out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films will probably do an assessment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes Gonzo just an assessment for now if you would. Films project would only assign it as a "list". Thanks. It's too young to review yet. Mjpresson (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I left some comments on the talk page. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the use of such links has grown to be acceptable in the leads of FL nominations. Some WikiProjects (notably music, under discussion in film) are banning them. Why? Because when readers see solitary year links, they are highly unlikely to click on them. There is increasing support for encouraging editors to work the full link into the sentence on the first occurrence (almost always in the lead) of one of the year-in-X items, and thenceforth to use plain years without any link. The rationale, which I find compelling, is that readers are more likely to click on the gateway link towards the top, from which, of course, there's easy access to all sibling year-in-X links. Here are two examples of current nominations where I believe my edits improve the clarity and transparency of the linking. You may wish to compare these in display mode, too, by scrolling down.

example 1

example 2.

Tony (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So should we insert something into the criteria? :-) Tony (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog, 2 nominations in need of reviewers

The Rambling Man left his position only two days ago, and I've just updated the backlog from six entries to twenty! At the moment, List of people with hepatitis C and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R are in desperate need of reviewers. Their FLC pages are Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R. Any feedback people can provide would be welcome, I'm sure. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

So there's been some questions on the FLC for NBA All-Rookie Team. I absolutely hate the look of linking every team to the same page all the way down - the table is blue with all the links.

I see there was almost no discussion here and some discussion at OVERLINK about tables. That discussion hinges (to some extent) on the table being *sortable*, which somewhat makes sense, but only somewhat.

Can someone clue me in as to proper protocol? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlink repeated links only if the table is not sortable. If the table is sortable, then we can't always tell which text appears at the top when the page is sorted, so all terms have to be linked in that case. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the titles of lists. Please participate. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

completely contradicting guidelines for lists. Let's begin with the Lead section

Wikipedia:Lists#Lead_section or paragraph is completely contrary to what we require per Criterion 2, which points to WP:LEAD, which directs to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).

Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview says:

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.

But WP:Lists#Lead section or paragraph says:

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:

  • If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
  • If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.
Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification.

Currently:

Further information: Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) § Lead and selection criteria

Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do.

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria recommends that "[a list] has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list."

Further, non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert#How Schubert's compositions are listed).

Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").

update by Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I did review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria, and it says:

Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources. Non-obvious characteristics of the list, for instance regarding the list structure, should also be explained in the lead section.

When deciding what to include on a list, ask yourself:

  • If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
  • Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
  • Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?

Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert. Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles; instead consider listing them in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject.

If a complete list is feasible in 32K, and could be useful, go for a complete list. Otherwise, you need to make sure section editing is enabled or you may want to build a selected list.

It is useful to start each list with a sentence describing the content and scope of the list. For complete lists:

This is a complete list of Xs.

For partial/selected lists:

This is a selected list of Xs. Xs listed here should be (selection criteria).

When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include the "See also" section, that shows related lists and articles, after the introduction and before the list.

So we have two style guidelines telling us to start lists with "This is a list of....", and the other one deferring to them. As well as observing WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, etc, lists have to follow WP:Lists, WP:Stand-alone lists, WP:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). That's a hell of a lot of extra pages that don't align with each other. Is it any wonder why some people "see no discernable improvement in quality [here] over recent months" and that the quality of Featured lists still isn't as high as it should be, when we can't agree with our guidelines on how to even introduce it?

It isn't just the lead sections that are contradicting each other, it seems to be pretty much everything. Wikipedia is constantly changing and we have to ensure that our guidelines change with it, because as we know from the number of reviewers and nominators to FLC, lists are a niche subject and we're not going to find many other people who are as interested as we are. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed that contradiction from the lead section section at Lists when this was raised a while ago by TRM. And guess who's lurking there to revert it (10 days ago)—our old friend of progress, Francis Shonken. I've rewritten it (with a sense of deja vu until I looked at the history): I'll need back-up there, please. Francis Shonken has serious ownership issues with several style and policy pages, and has a long track-record of reverting any change for the better. Tony (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Practically all guidelines related to lists are outdated, contradictory and useless. Effort should be made to revise them. I propose we make one comprehensive guideline about lists which should deal with the title, lead, content, linking, citations, table formats and sorting. Eklipse (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that we need Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists then that guideline seems the appropriate place to discuss the lead section. The discussion in Wikipedia:Lists on lead sections should therefore be removed/moved. I've always felt Wikipedia:Lead section is written for potential GA/FA, not lists (where the opportunity to be a "summary of the article" is not practical). Rather, the "introduction to the topic" is more important. We should avoid having separate guidelines for lists without good reason--I can't see why the rules for linking or citations need be different. Colin°Talk 12:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

New service

I've started a list here where editors can request semi-automatic removal of date autoformatting for an article or set of articles. The removal of DA is required as part of the need to comply with the style guides. Tony (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony, has the style guide changed? I thought it was depreciated, not disallowed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of thumb images

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @

Following up on some discussion about image usage in List of universities in Ontario, I'd like to get some input about the general idea of including a stack of images along side a table-list and what display-standards we should be expecting. As that page currently exists, my few-years-old screen simply can't display the page well because "images + table" is wider than the window. This is not a problem for text (wraps in the space available), but tables with lots of columns can't narrow to accommodate pictures next to them. Depending on my browser and how it tries to place the images, I see two different layout disasters: Image:Ontario-image-stack.png or Image:Ontario-image-stack2.png. I agree that the images are a nice addition to these articles, but don't like that we're claiming "WP's best" looks pretty bad unless one has a fairly state-of-the-art monitor and us using normal font-sizes. It seems like this is choosing "pretty on standard systems" over "good on wide variety of systems and coding for accessibility", and flies in the face of MOS:IMAGES guidelines (and sublinked pages). Thoughts? DMacks (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that if the photos just push the table down, it is fine. But if the photos overlap the table in such a way that it makes it difficult to read, then the photos should be removed or made smaller. Do take note that we can't make things perfect for everyone, we just strive to make things work for most people. Oh and I just couldn't resist with the photo with your section header :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_7&oldid=1207688758"