Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Discographies

I don't know if this is the right place or not to discuss this, but I have pointed this out in in a previous FLC, but the users said it was how other FL's were modeled. What I am talking about is that for the albums, users include information like released dates, labels, and format, but it is not verified with a reliable source, which puzzles me, is this acceptable? Most of the lists aren't accurate if they aren't verified.--^SR_X 01:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the formats, CD, vinyl and cassette are self-referenced in that they physically exist. Similar to how episode plots do not need referencing because it can be verified by watching the episode, the very existence of the format is the reference. The record label is, without fail, mentioned on the album sleeve, so again, I'd say that need not be referenced. I do agree, however, that release dates should be referenced. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So it can be agreed that the release dates should be referenced?--S _R X 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if two people agreeing is regarded as consensus. Best bet is to start a discussion at WT:V or WT:NOR, and alert WP:DISCOG. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:MUSIC say that album articles need to verify release dates? If so, I see no difference on discogs. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It says that for future albums it must be sourced, but if that is so, the album should remain sourced, so I don't see the difference with the discog.S _R X 00:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A new contest?

Well, the contest that I ran a few months ago was somewhat of a bust. It got a lot of entrants, but unfortunately most just lost interest once the first few FLCs were submitted. However, it did have its benefits because now "Awards, decorations and vexillology" is one of the fastest growing categories and that might not have happened had it not been for the contest.

So, I've been doing some thinking about how we could do a new contest that wouldn't be over once the first FLC is done, and I have a few solutions. We could do a wikicup style contest, except a user works on three FLCs. These three could be from under-represented topics, but I thought it might be more interesting if one was from an under-represented topic, one was from one of the somewhat populated topics and the third was entrant's choice. And, you could only submit one at a time (or alternatively, we could have a three day catch up period to allow the later submitters to catch up). This would mean the contest would be much more drawn out and give other users a chance. It would also allow users to work with lists that they are familiar with and also broaden their editing horizons. And finally, it would generate some FLs in the under-populated topics. I would like to try to get this going in October, so if anyone has any suggestions, I would be more than happy to hear them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea. The last contest was indeed a bust, and seemed to end before it started. A Wikicup-style competition would seem like the best idea, with various individual rounds. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the last contest got me into Academy Awards lists, and since then, I've made nine FLs for the "Awards, decorations, and vexillology" category, so it was very productive for me. :p And yeah, the Wikicup-style competition seems to be a good idea. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started a new page and threw on some possible rules. The contest likely will not begin for at least a week, but if you are interested, you can add your name. Please note that these rules are not set in stone just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs)

what happens if

different reviewers oppose pretty much for opposite reasons? i.e. after solving the comments from one, another revewer comes and opposes because he wants the list pretty much how it looked before the other's comments were solved? Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Part of the role of the Featured List directors is to decide whether or not someone's comments/complaints are valid. Preusmbly if User A suggests something, and they feel it improvest he article, then User B's suggestion of reversion would be rejected. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists tagged for clean up

B. Wolterding has generated a handy list for us that lists all FLs with clean up tags (I'm actually considering nominating it, reviews welcome). The list is a "database snapshot of 14 July 2008" so some of these concerns may have already been addressed. There are 11 with unsourced statements, 2 in need of updating and one with a disputed statement and one with a broken citation. The rest of concerns aren't really worth nominating for removal over, except List of elements by name which really needs a clean up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A new, updated version (from October 8) has been generated. This time, there are some more serious violations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question re: graphics on FLC commentaries

I note that the "instructions" on the page say:

Graphics such as Done, Not done, and Doing... are fine; all other graphics such as Comments, Review, Support are strongly discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.

Isn't this a false statement? I don't remember where the conversation is, but the "server load" and "page load" arguments don't really hold water, if I remember correctly. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is more of a template load issue I believe. We had come to the point on the FAC page where the subpages could not be transcluded because they had hit the template load limit. Woody (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm nearly certain the servers had that issue taken care of six or eight months ago. I recommend we remove that item from the instructions. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template limits, it is still there. That is on top of the point that they look ugly and disrupt the page. Woody (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, WP:PR and WP:FAC discourage all graphics, including

Done ({{done}}) and

Not done ({{not done}}). I was thinking we might do the same here. If people want to add some green ticks and red crosses, there is

Done ({{done-t}}) and ✗ Not done ({{not done-t}}, which use text-based ticks and crosses. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Those text-based ticks still add up to the total for the template limit. Gary King (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And they don't show up on Firefox... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox and they show up for me. Gary King (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's odd. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They should work for you on Firefox. Otherwise, you're either using an old version or it's broken, probably because of an extension that you have installed. Gary King (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I only use FF, and I can see them. They work in Safari too, and look alot better than the do in FF. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose they do, but it's still not as much as a graphic would. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We now have 1000 FLs

Just thought I'd point that out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kudos to everyone. Now we have to beat out FA ;-) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a race, but we are growing at about the same rate. Both processes promoted 59 in September (but I'm willing to bet that they delisted more than we did). However, this month we have 32 to their 24 promotions. So it might be a while before we catch up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the FLC regulars decide whether or not it's a race! ;-) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's a race. Also, I'm proud to have contributed to 1.8% of those featured lists. :D -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 22:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is proud to be one in one-thousand. ;) iMatthew (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

While it is a great achievement, i agree that it is not a race, and we're not competing with FA to get the most Featured content. I'd rather have 10 really excellent articles listed at WP:FL than 100 that just scrape the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool —Chris! _ct 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

To Scorpion and Matthew, I know it's not a race, but it's a fun thing to say in the spirit of the moment. And I guess it's cool that I have made a little over 4% of all FLs :) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PR & FLC

You say "A list should not be on Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Why is this?

I've been working on Supergrass discography which received a peer review from one user. I submitted this on the 7 October and got a response on 12 October. Here's the question. I think the PR was good and the comments have been addressed and it's close to being nominated for a FLC, will I have to wait for the PR to close before nominating at FLC? TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 11:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You can close a peer review at any time you like. There should be instructions at the WP:PR page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Sorry to ask a slightly irrelevant question, but... is there anywhere that one can request a review by someone experienced with FLs of a list without actually nominating for FLC? I've got a couple I want to nominate at some point in the future but am trying to get some indication on progress. As this is not FLC related, feel welcome to reply on my talk page. Thanks. Orderinchaos 15:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You can ask me? Or go directly to other experienced editors like Matthewedwards, Scorpion0422 or similar? I'm sure someone will gladly help. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh excellent. Didn't know what the protocol was. :) Thanks. Orderinchaos 19:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't someone make a list of FL reviewers? Maybe we should post a link to that list here so then users will have a quick easy list of who to go to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:FLRV be the link?--S _R X 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FLC overload?

WP:FAC says "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Given the current state of FLC (57 nominations, 28 of these from two prolific editors (Gary King with 16, Sephiroth BCR with 12)) is it time to consider introducing such a limit here? Please note that I am not criticising either of these two for their hard work - it's just that with a paucity of reviewers, more nominations are going into overtime or failing to get much feedback beyond a check on sources. We then get a quick renomination of the list and the same thing can happen again! If there were fewer lists for review, would nominations get dealt with more quickly? Perhaps there are two questions: (a) should there be such a limit on nominations; (b) if so, what level of support should be required before a nominator can put forward another list (I'll get the ball rolling with "two"). Views? Bencherlite ^Talk 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I brought this up some time ago, can't remember the outcome but clearly it wasn't to limit FLCs per nominator, as Gary and Sephiroth prove. I would advocate a limit, especially when a number are running simultaneously which draw similar comments... Perhaps four nominations, two supports? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion. On "four nominations, two supports", not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean "The normal limit on FLCs per nominator at any one time is four; however, if a nominator's FLC has two or more net 'supports', a fifth (or subsequent) FLC can be added"? If so, I like the sound of that and would support such a change. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should have some kind of limit. It's one thing to have 3-6 FLCs, but a dozen (especially considering that many of these are the same type of list) is really going to start straining our reviewers. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. People just won't be up for reviewing 12 lists of awards and nominations in a row... as Bencherlite said up there somewhere, it's no criticism of the nominators who are doing good work, it's just making the review process stagnate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell Gary not to make this a contest, the nut. But in all seriousness, I have midterms this week so I will not be submitting anything for a bit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A little off-topic, but I think we should try to do something to discourage these artist awards lists. I think Gary is a fantastic editor, he has a lot of skill in making quick FLs, but I really wish he would stop creating new pages and instead work on improving some of the many existing lists that are poor quality. I think too many people are splitting off these awards lists unnecessarily. Some are necessary, for example List of awards won by The Simpsons, where to list so many awards on an already overlong article would not be a good idea. The main reason for creating these lists is for when an article is too long. However, something like List of awards and nominations received by Matchbox Twenty isn't really necessary because the list isn't too long and the main Matchbox Twenty article isn't very long either. I really do get the sense that Gary thinks it is a contest to crank out as many FLs as possible (sorry Gary, I really do think you are a great editor). I really do think that having so many "easy FLs" hurts the process, because we are trying to convince people that FLC has vastly improved and that it is a legitimate featured content process and yet when someone goes to WP:FL they see so many "cookie cutter" lists that they begin to think that it really is too easy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of outside perspective: I am not an editor trying to gather up awards or become an admin. I just try to improve articles on a very limited topic. I must at least somewhat agree with Scorpion0422 on the "cookie cutter lists", as I myself got here in that way. I saw List of Castlevania titles and thought: "You can do that too." About the "FLC overload": I won't advocate a certain way of dealing with it, as I am rather new here, but I'd like to point out, that seeing a FLC (that you have worked hard for) fail without any opposes remaining, can be a very disappointing and more importantly discouraging experiance. Though I won't be stopped by it, others might. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be wonderful if editors could go make a wide variety of lists, on many different topics, but the fact of the matter is that people don't like working on lists that they don't enjoy. Our goal is too make every list featured, isn't it? If that is still our goal, then I would encourage Gary and Seph to keep shooting them out. They do such a good job on the lists they work on, why try to limit that creative ability? I understand everyone's concern, but how does having so many "easy FLs" hurt the process? Our goal is not "to convince people that FLC has vastly improved and that it is a legitimate featured content process," our goal is to create a great encyclopedia. Of course, if a list isn't long enough to even exist, then that's a whole different argument. I would encourage Gary and Seph to branch out, but honestly, I wouldn't mind having 1000 List of awards and nominations received by, so guys keep up the good work!

Oh, and I'll try to review a couple lists, I have been slacking lately :/ « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that we are trying to convince people that it has become a process with standards that equal FAC, but when someone looks at the music awards section, they see dozens of pages with less than 20 rows and think "that's all it takes?" (to be fair, it's not just music, a lot of other categories have the same problem) I agree that our goal is to make every list featured, but we should focus on existing lists first before creating dozens of pages that might not necessarily need their own article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't have more than two lists on FLC at any one time. I don't think it is reasonable to ask users to review the same kind of lists over and over again, but that is a personal opinion. Then again, I have been influenced by the current standards at FAC. I think 5 should be a maximum at any one time. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to a limit, and I think it would benefit people doing multiple lists, as much as it would benefit reviewers and the list process. I, personally, get discouraged when I see there are 58 lists waiting to be reviewed. OMG! Fifty-Eight! <sigh> Anyway, seeing that many on the list makes me find other things to do - it's overwhelming. If submitters were limited to, say, three (I could live with five, max, but would prefer three) at a time, reviewers like me would be more likely to review, and lists would be promoted quicker. Which means submitters would be able to submit more... Not only would that speed up the process, but submitters that only submit occasionally (like myself) wouldn't have to wait three to four weeks before being promoted, which is a dismaying situation. Anyway, my opinion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on a limit, not critizing Gary anyway, but eventually it get's really boring and less interesting to review the same type of lists over and over, especially when you nominate them at the same tim and have a dozen nominations going on. I think, since list's are easier to review than FAC's, there shouldn't be a limit like only 1 or 2 nominations at a time, but there should be some sort of limit to reduce the overload of FLC's that don't get attention and fail due to lack of comments and reduce the workload for many of our reviewers.--S _R X 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Gonzo) Well, the intention of those FLC contests are working. First one got me into Academy Awards list, and the present one got me into Nobel Prize lists, so something must be working in the "branching off" part of it ;-) But yeah, the main reason I was going nuts on lists was partly to convince my admin coachee that 1) he can produce lists faster than I can 2) he has way more content contributions than I had at my RfA (hell, he'll have more content contributions than any editor in Wikipedian history at his RfA, save maybe Hink) 3) he needs to get over this complex that he has to have more FLs than I do. Last point was j/k btw. In any case, I will slow down, no worries. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Satyr) Five is weak. Seven :) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Just joking, I'll abide by whatever consensus brings up here. The only time I will go overboard in the future is when I'm really close to a featured topic.

Crux of the matter is that we now have a backlog similar to that before the upheaval of the process. List nominations are outstripping reviewer availability which is exacerbated by the fact that many similar lists are nominated at once. FAC is much more diverse, mainly down to the nature of what best suits an article versus a list. So FLC reviewers are snowed under with too many of the same type of list. It creates apathy, reduces scrutiny and increases the likelihood of a "comment only" FLC which just ends up pissing off nominators (usually). Poor result. So, I'd go for a limit, not a huge one, but just one which keeps FLC active, interesting and diverse. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, how about limiting the number of nominations by one user?--S _R X 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, only limiting the nominations per editor has been discussed. Perhaps I can offer a better solution. Keep everything the way it is now, except: Only show 1 nomination per editor on the page by default. Make the others hidden behind a link or something. This would allow editors to nominate as many lists as they like. It would be less frightening for reviewers. Instead of "58 lists waiting to be reviewed. OMG! Fifty-Eight!" they'd get to say something like "5 people have nominated lists (and if I have time to spare, I'll check out the other fourty lists that guy has nominated)". New or occasional nominators would have no disadvantages what so ever. And even the mass nominators would probably be better off this way, as the procedure encourages reviewing. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about mandating that for every list they submit to FLC, they must review another nominated FLC. For Gary and Sephiroth (who by the way, are valuable contributors and much appreciated for all they've done), that would be 28 reviews total, or about half the number of FLCs running right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a crappy reviewer outside my comfort zone to be honest. The most you can do is recommend that people review other FLCs if they nominate one. Gary is a much better reviewer than I am, and I think he fulfills this requirement already. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That would probably work unfairly to my advantage as I review lists quite often; I've currently got 23 reviews on lists currently up at FLC. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the "cookie-cutter" repetitiveness of the lists submitted to FLC, I personally do not have a problem with that. In fact, because I practically know how awards lists, discographies, and episode lists are supposed to look, I tend to be able to review those lists faster. It also helps knowing the mistakes that the nominators are predisposed to make. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

FL topics

Hi folks, I just wanted to bring this discussion to everyone's attention, because more opinions are needed. It would also be great if more regulars would put that page on watch, then we could have better discussions there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviewer of the month award?

I've been trying to think of ways to improve all of the various FL related processes. The FL contest helps with the under-populated topics, Gonzo and I are working on a "FL sweeps" for FLRC (stay tuned), but how do we encourage reviewers, a very important but very under-appreciated, under-thanked and under-staffed part of the process. Then I thought maybe we could take a page out of GAC's book and try keeping track of reviewers and giving a "reviewer of the month award". It might work, it might not, but it could be worth a try. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it, I'm not real familiar with how GA does though. Is it based on the number of reviews, the substance of reviews, or is there other criteria? Personally, any encouragement to review would be helpful, and I think this would help. It is definitely worth a try. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked Sandy about it here because she once did something similar, but her response has pretty much killed my enthusiasm for the idea. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that really is quite disheartening. She makes some very valid points, some of which I agree. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know, I am taking a break from Wikipedia due to some rl stuff. I am resigning my FLRC position. Sorry about that, I just don't have the time right now. I wish you guys the best. (This edit was made on my school IP address, cuz I already put the Wikibreak enforcer in my monobook :/ « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.164.113 (talk)

Having been asked to verify this for FLRC use, it is

Confirmed that the above is indeed very likely to be Gonzo_fan2007 as one might expect. Hope this helps :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess it's true then. Thanks a lot for all of the effort you put into FLRC, and enjoy your break. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Gonzo fan for all the hardwork and effort you have put into FLs and Wikipedia in general. Enjoy your break. Kind regards. Woody (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

iAgree, thanks. iMatthew (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your break :) Thanks for your service.--S _R X 21:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we make a "Urgent FLC" template?

Can we make a template that has Urgent FLCs that need comment, like User:Tony1/FAR urgents, if we don't have one already, maybe this way we can get more reviewers/comments on FLC's.--S _R X 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We have that big yellowy-orange box at WP:FLC. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but we can't transclude that into other places on Wiki like on a different page or a user page.--S _R X 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we can.. see my userpage. iMatthew (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have it on my userpage, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just thought we could make a smaller one, oh well.--S _R X 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A tribute to The Rambling Man

Well, our beloved ex-director will be taking a 5 month leave in a day or so, and I, for one, will miss him (and his reviews). He is a former director, prolific nominator, excellent reviewer and a Brit (although I guess nobody is perfect). He was also an integral part of helping us raise the profile and standards of FLC and contributed a lot of time and effort to the process. Good luck with your trip TRM and once you return, I'll gladly boot Matthewedwards so you can re-take your spot as director. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, and have fun Rambling Man - and I'm sure Matthewedwards will be thrilled! iMatthew (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We will all mist TRM, hope you enjoy your time off and your break, you have done great to this department of Wiki. We hope you can come back as our director.--S _R X 23:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your expert reviews will certainly be missed around here. A sincere thankyou for all the work you have put into FL, being one of the driving forces in bringing it to the level it is now. Good luck in your endeavours. Kind regards. Woody (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I can't promise to do too many reviews over the next five months but I'll pop in from time to time just to keep an eye on you all! Take it easy! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion said it best. Have a nice trip, and try not to suffer from withdrawal symptoms! :-) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

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

Hi guys. I know there is a backlog at FLC, including one that should be quickfailed; It's 2am my time, and if I start now I won't get to bed until 4. I intend to get to them tomorrow around 2pm-ish (9pm UTC). In the meantime, anybody who sees this note please review some of the articles that are in the backlog.

You may or may not know that User:Gimmetrow was blocked earlier today. It has now expired, but he said he would be taking a break for a few days. Also, he's been thinking of retiring User:Gimmebot since July. From what Sandy has said, he was very close to doing this (he'd given her the bot code, but it was old), and it's likely he simply won't bring it back online. I need to figure out exactly what Gimmebot's FLC contribs were because it will all have to be done manually from now on. Luckily, Sandy has all that info in her userspace, so I will study up early tomorrow and get to closing after that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion still has it on his userpage see the FLC archive instructions on his userpage. It is a shame that it came to this. Woody (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a shame. I have that info, thanks though. That's just instructions for us how to correctly put a nomination in the FLC log and update WP:GO. There's actually a whole lot more besides that, see User:SandyGeorgia/FA work and User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps. Gimmebot moves nominations to archives, closes archives, clears redirects, updates article history on article talk pages, updates class assessments on talk pages, adds stars to article pages. I just want to make sure I get it all right before going in with all guns blazing, and at 2.30am, I know I won't get it all right, which means they'll have to wait until tomorrow! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never been very good at remembering which pages to go to, so I keep a copy on my user page. You can find an old version of the instructions here. We used to make the nominators move their own FLCs to archives, but that didn't always work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to run it, but I'm not keen on bot coding or what to do for a bot.S _R X 21:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just did my first set of closures without GimmeBot in quite some time. It's harder than I remember, of course back then we didn't have the articlehistory template. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't someone just take Gimmebot's code and run it themselves? It performed such a useful task and all that's needed to keep it running is for someone else to maintain the bot. It's written in Python, I believe. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they can. He gave it to Sandy, I believe, in case he does retire it. Right now though it's not an up-to-date version. Of course, nothing is set in stone and Gimmetrow may not retire it at all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately it should be given to someone who already runs bots daily, just in case something goes wrong, etc. Gary King (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I know Happy Melon, who already operates a python bot said he'd be happy to. I don't know if anything came of it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we just need to wait and see what Gimmetrow does, before we start jumping to conclusions (yeah, I know I started it with this thread! :-| ) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just close this discussion for now. Unnecessary. If we have a problem with GimmeBot, then the other processes will, too, and we can brainstorm new ideas together if we have to. Gary King (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Talk page archives

I was looking through the archives earlier tonight and found they were all messed up. /Archive2 had stuff that should have been in /Archive3 and /Archive4. /Archive3 also had stuff that should have been in /Archive2. I reordered them so they now appear chronologically, and correctly. In the process I also spread them out a little because they were pretty un-navigate-able before. Each archive is now 100kb or thereabouts, which I'm aware is rather small for talk page archives but it should be easier to find old stuff now. Latest archive is /archive8. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimmebot's new schedule

Gimmetrow, who runs Gimmebot, the bot used to finish the closures of FLC and FLRC and update talkpages, has decided to run the bot at scheduled times of Wednesday and Sunday mornings at 00:00 UTC. As such all FLCs and FLRCs (and FACs and FARs) will only close on Tuesdays and Saturdays so that editors do not start getting worried that the star hasn't been added to their nominated lists/articles. This isn't really a bad thing. There are a lot of steps that the bot does that would have to be done manually if the bot retired, and it also allows for discussions to be kept open longer, allowing more time for editors to attempt to respond to concerns, and for reviewers who don't spend each and every day, all day, on WP to have a better chance of taking part in the discussions. Matthewedwards 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I would like to try and have a Featured List barnstar made (the alternative is to have the existing Featured Article Medal changed to Featured Content Medal. This is the chance for anyone to object to the idea. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a Wiki, just do it! :-) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is Template:ReviewersAward already, but as Julian said, be bold! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish I could win that :p But I like the idea of a Feature content one, just share it with all the featured departments, but then again one just for FLC would be awesome :)--S _R X 20:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How do y'all like this one?

File:Featured List award.PNG

iMatthew (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm odd but that looks like a knackered FA star after a big "session"... I like it! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not bad (why is the FA star upside-down though?). I'm pretty sure that the image can't be PD since you're using the FA star though. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it, though I agree with Sephiroth. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have 3 or so barnstars on the page, so that they make a "list"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooh - I like that idea! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Featured list award.PNG

Better? iMatthew (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Now it look like the stars were cut out of paper and glued on! :-) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No - it's those little sticky stars you get for being good at attendance in pre-K :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL to SatyrTN, but I think there should be three stars, it shows more of a list IMO.--S _R X 03:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the "list" version, the first is better. I suggested to iMatthew that he try adapting the list bit into a medal (like the FA medal) and see how it turns out. He said he'll give a try tomorrow. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What about a slightly different tack? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:FL-BarnScroll.png is awesome. Great job. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although it's a bit blurry. iMatthew (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that one, although it could be a bit sharper. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, though if someone else has mad skills at Photoshop, speak up :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

New version uploaded, but still looking for mad skills to make it look more 3D. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like, I like. Another crazy idea, could you try putting the list image over a normal barnstar? That might look pretty good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has kind of died off. Does anyone else have any suggestions or comments? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hunh - I missed your idea about the list on top of the star. Not sure how that would look, but let me see. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my idea is use Image:Original Barnstar.png + one of those two images above (without the star on the lists), and positioned this mini-list in the middle of the "Original Barnstar". Canniba loki 20:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in a Main Page section?

Hi, I'm from the 2008 main page redesign proposal and I am interested in adding a new section that will display a Featured Portal, Topic, or List daily. (I don't think there's enough to have one of each a day for several years.) However, I am not involved with any of these projects and don't want to champion the cause myself. There has already been talk of Featured Sounds on the Main Page; and we would be willing to make combinations like the Beethoven mock-up there, featuring related lists, portals, topics, etc. on one day. I would appreciate your feedback here, because I'm posting this message in a number of places and would like a unified discussion. Thanks, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we're promoting lists at a rate equal to FAC, so I'm sure we'd be able to supply enough to have a list a day. I've always been opposed to putting lists on the main page, I think it would just clutter things up and I've just never seen the point. I also haven't seen any main page designs that are that much better than the current one, so I'm against that too. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And on the flip side of that, its something that I'd really like to see. As Scorpion says, we have enough Featured lists to be able to appear on the main page. Whether they appear daily as Featured Articles and Images do, or whether they share the space with portals and topics, isn't a big deal. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Matthewedwards. I'd love to see Featured lists on the main page. iMatthew (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists aren't nearly as useful for the main page as articles are. Lists are primarily indexes of information; they are most useful to those who are actively seeking that information. Otherwise, a typical list doesn't have much to attract someone who is not already interested in the subject. Gary King (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion0422 brings up two competing points: an abundance of FLs and a desire to keep things clean. I agree that there are more lists than topics and portals, which might not be able to keep up even between the two of them, in addition to being too much clutter. Gary King's argument of usefulness is another interesting point. We're purposefully abstaining from designing after a failed design-happy poll, so it's totally reasonable to oppose the redesign right now. The burden of proof is on us, and I hope you'll check back in a few weeks. (Though please, continue to comment.)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Another idea of mine

The reason the thread doesn't have a good title is because I couldn't think of a good enough thing to call it. What if we had a (for lack of a better title) "list of the week challenge" where myself or that other director guy would pick a list and the person that got it to FL would win (and we could give a fancy barnstar to sweeten the deal). I got the idea while browsing through this list and I thought to myself "wow, some of these have FL potential, I'm too lazy to do it, but I wish there was a way I could convince others to" and bingo, I thought of this. So this could work out or it could just as easily fail miserably, but it might be worth a try. What does everyone think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea. Does the winner get a certificate to an auto-promoted FLC? User:Juliancolton/Faces –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, sounds tempting I'm in if it does follow through. But, the only problem is, if it's only for one article, there'll be a lot of edit conflicts and it'll get nowhere, so it would have to encompass as many articles as people who participate, so there should be a poll or something about a week prior to it for those who want to be a part of this, and assign them a list when the "challenge of the week" takes place :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit of a problem, but I don't know if there would be such a huge rush to work on such a page because I don't plan on picking easy lists. My idea for this would be first come first served, so somebody would have to specifically say that they wanted to work on it. Another idea would be to pick three lists, and do the same thing. Yet another idea (but it might put a little more strain on me and the process) is to offer a list a day, with the same first come first served philosophy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah true... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would like to clarify, there would be no deadline for this. Basically, it would be I offer a list, anyone who wants to work on it can, and first one to say so does the work. If it eventually gets promoted, you get a barnstar. Not a race, no time limit. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that makes it much better :D. I'm in when / if it does start. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. At first I thought it was a contest, but now that I know more about it, it sounds very easy-going. Too many contests is no good; eventually people get tired. But this sounds great. Gary King (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Any more opinions about this? -- Zombie Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, many are working up articles for the WikiCup right now, what about doing this after the WikiCup ends? Maybe not though, because it's a couple of months long. iMatthew 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new FLRC delegate

Well, Gonzo fan2007 is on a wikibreak now, so Matthewedwards and I have been debating over what to do. As he explained here, Dweller will be very busy for the next little while, so we decided it would be best to appoint a new delegate. After much debate, we decided to ask Sephiroth BCR, who has accepted. This is the approval post, this is the opportunity for all users to comment, ask questions or oppose, so fire away. After about a week, if there are no outstanding concerns, his name will be added to FLRC. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] iMatthew (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not to familiar on how delegates on FLRC work as opposed to the FLC directors, but what experience do you have Seph in FLRC?--S _R X 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sephiroth isn't very active there, but basically all that is required is a good knowledge of FLC policy and standards, and he definitely has that. Nobody has really been particularily active there recently, and we really do need what few commentators there are there, so we decided to go with an FLC vet. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a boatload of experience there, but then again, hardly do any of the FLC regulars. The lists being brought there are usually fairly old lists that don't meet the present criteria, so I should be fairly comfortable in reviewing them. Oh, and what is the GimmeBot situation? I believe I read somewhere that Sandy said that directors should only promote/archive stuff on Tuesdays and Sundays because that is when GimmeBot will be run. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimmebot now only runs on Wednesdays and Sundays at 00:00 (UTC). As such, all FAC, FAR, FLC and FLRCs should be closed only on Tuesdays or Saturdays. That way, eager editors won't go removing templates from article talk pages and adding the stars to the pages, which will stall the bot. Matthewedwards 00:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - oh, well then Seph is the next FLRC delegate.--S _R X 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Support –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - user is a power hungry, uncivil, and disobedient editor. Wait, this isn't his EfD!? My mistake, but while I'm here: Good luck Sephiroth, you'll do a great job!! iMatthew (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Popping in to lend my support. Sorry, but RL is throwing rather a lot at me just now. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week and there is no opposition, so I guess Sephiroth BCR is our new delegate. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all your support, and I hope to meet your expectations. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Backlog template

Is the backlog template, the one that appears on the FLC page, only suppose to have old nominations from FLC? Or can it have FLRC's too?--S _R X 19:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Just FLC, FLRC doesn't have one if I'm right. iMatthew 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, just FLCs, but having a section for FLRCs might not be a bad idea. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought, because many of them don't receive comments for more than 10 days.--S _R X 19:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

Nominations urgently needing reviews

These lists have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so.

The following lists were nominated for Featured list status more than 10 days ago:

Source reviews needed

List of Hampshire County Cricket Club grounds (FLC)

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

iMatthew 19:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the minimum amount of time a FLRC needs to remain open is 14 days, but otherwise I'd have no objection to adding that. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. iMatthew 19:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not half bad actually.--S _R X 19:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

On the backlog template, it says the following, "These lists have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so." There is another reason why the list are on. I don't know how to explain but my FL nomination, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres Opening Day starting pitchers, do not have any objections or insufficient information, but has to wait until Saturday to get promoted. -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 02:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is because when we close nominations, we rely on the Gimmebot to handle the more tedious aspects of it. However, the bot runner grew tired of doing it randomly, sometimes multiple times a day. So, there are now fixed run times, Tuesday and Saturday. It doesn't mean your list is bad. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

So can you re-write the paragraph on the top of the backlog, please? -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 02:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up a Featured List into sub-lists - comments welcome

FL regulars are invited to comment on whether the very long List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford should have sub-lists created, and if so, how. The discussion is at Talk:List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford#Time to split into sub-lists?. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Graphics on FLC's

I think the use of graphics should be looked again because I tried to go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The O.C. (season 4), which has many graphics, and It took my computer, which is relatively fast, a while for my browser to load the page, I think the use of these types of graphics should be looked into closely.--TRU_CO 01:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Wikipedia was running slow for about an hour or so before you posted this, and is still relatively slow, so it's just Wikipedia, not the graphics. iMatthew 01:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was just me.--TRU_CO 02:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the checkmarks on that page are not graphics; they are text that appear to be checkmarks, and they are colored using HTML. Gary King (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New format for WP:FL

The page is somewhat hard to navigate because we have so many lists of the same type, and sorting them alphabetically adds to the confusion. So, I've been experimenting with different formats, and I've been trying out the one used at WP:GA. It can be found here and it actually looks pretty good. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on everyone, we all know Scorpion is the laziest project director in Wikipedia today. When he does something nice like this, we need to reward him. Have a cookie, Mr. Director. iMatthew 21:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Format looks good. I always liked the WP:GA setup. Fire away. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good like that. Thanks for working on that! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, though it isn't perfect; you have a Knight's Cross list in with the Victoria Cross lists, shocking! ;)) Woody (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some more experimenting and I've decided that it is somewhat disorganized having it sorted alphabetically and would make more sense to have similar topics grouped together. So, I've again taken the system used by WP:GA where there are about 30 topics grouped into about 10 categories. I feel this organizes the page a lot better. The one bad thing is that this eliminates the "awards, decorations and vexillology" topic, so I've split those various lists up into military history, culture and Royalty, nobility and heraldry. Feel free to leave any comments and make any changes. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a small update, I've decided to recombine the category and put it under "Social sciences". It's sort of out of place, but there have been several complaints in the past about having vexillology under "Royalty, nobility and heraldry". Also, I couldn't figure out where else to put those Nobel lists so that they would be together. So, with keeping all of those in mind, that option makes the most sense. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done transferring all of the FLs, so what does everyone think? BTW, I need someone to go through and categorize the football (soccer) and cricket FLs for me because I know little/nothing about the leagues for those sports. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done the soccer ones. The new version looks good in my opinion, a bit long though. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Great job Mr. Director! Gary King (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be no opposition, so I'm going to implement the new format tomorrow when I do the FL promotions. This is the last chance for any objections. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image check requests

Could someone please image check ~~Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of New Brunswick, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of Prince Edward Island, and~~ Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador? I've already asked a few people to check other lists but these ones still need to be done. Gary King (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also with Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of British Columbia. Thanks. -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

FLC Format

Would it be possible to have a bot automatically add a link to the dead link checker for each FL to its FLC? It would be far more convenient for reviewers, and it would certainly be easier to look at the links for just a single list than for every last FL as is done when using the link on the main FLC page. It would also be useful if the FLC's automatically had links to the article history and talk for quicker checking of stability and the like. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

So basically, you want us to switch over to the format used at FAC? It's possible I guess, and I wouldn't be against it, but I think this has been discussed here before and rejected for being too complicated. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Or something similar, yes (though I think FA may no longer put in the dead link checker either). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to implement; it requires modifying the FLC nomination template so that when people click on the link to create the nomination, it uses a template as a basis for the page, which includes the section header and the tools automatically. Gary King (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

New record!

86 promoted FLs this month beats 85 promoted FLs from July! Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Vely nice! -- SRE.K.A~~nnoyomous~~.L.24_[c] 22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed FLRC speedy removal criteria

In light of this current FLRC, Sephiroth and I have decided to put together an official speedy removal criteria:

Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC directors, the list in the nomination:

has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list;^[Note] or
has a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely decrease the quality of the list; or
has a clear consensus to be delisted and no significant efforts have been made to improve the list.

^ Note. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article."

All comments and suggestions are welcome. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a speedy-removal criteria, but the third criterion doesn't really make sense. If there's a clear consensus to be delisted, more often than not it will have already been two weeks. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

<e/c>Makes sense to me in principle. Unsure about point 3... need to think it over a bit longer. NB Health permitting, I hope to be active once more at FLRC in the next few days or perhaps weeks. Sorry for the extended absence. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what the third criterion means (but doesn't say) is that if a list sucks so much that it's very listing as a FL compromises the entire process, and there is consensus to quickly remove it, then it can be. I thought it made sense to include it, but I suppose it is expendable. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How does the third point differ materially from WP:SNOW? Do we need it, or is it just potential WP:CREEP? Jclemens (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It really doesn't differ from WP:SNOW. I felt it could be a useful criteria to have, because if (and odds of one arising are VERY unlikely) such a situation does arise, and somebody later complains about it, then the delegate can point to the criteria. Like I said, it could easily go. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Revised criteria

Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegates, the list in the nomination:

has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list;^[Note] or
has a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely decrease the quality of the list

^ Note. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article."

Okay, people don't really like the third one, so here is the revised criteria. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what "that was reached in a different process" means, or adds to the sentence. Would the sentence mean the same thing if those words were deleted? If the answer is no, I need to understand better what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I felt it needed to be reiterated that the consensus could be reached outside of FLRC, but I agree. Reworded. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So I'm going to add this during the weekend if nobody opposes, so this is the last call for comments. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. aye matthew ✡ 22:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Show/hide function

Hi: How could one go about using the show/hide function to hide or show all at once many rows, such as every row containing a plot summary in a list of episodes of a TV series? Instead of hiding/showing each one of them, can a single hide/show be done for all those rows?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Season #	Series #	Title	Canadian airdate	U.S. airdate	Production code
1	144	"Uptown Girl" Part One	5 October 2008	10 October 2008	801
Degrassi gets a new principal for the new school year, Mr. Shepherd (or "The Shep"), whose laid-back style is popular with the students, but surprises Snake Simpson. The Shep establishes and coaches the Panthers, the new football team captained by quarterback Danny Van Zandt. On the first day of school The Shep decides to cancel classes and hold a fashion show for the football team's new uniform, and Mia begins to form a friendship with new student Leia. At the fashion show, Mia grows close to Danny when she models with him, and she is spotted by an agent who offers her a place on the books of a modeling agency. When she attends an audition with T-Bombz's star QB Tom Blake, Mia thinks she performed badly, especially after seeing another model flirting with him. She visits his apartment late at night to convince him she should get the job, and when he makes sexual advances towards her, she does not fight back. Meanwhile, Emma, Manny and Liberty arrive at Smithdale University, but Emma is upset to learn that they will not be rooming together. After speaking to the Housing department, Emma gets them into a room together with a male named Kelly – whom she thought was female. While Manny and Liberty throw themselves into the fun and activities of orientation week, Emma is disappointed that their relationship with each other is changing, until Kelly shows her how to have a good time without them.
2	145	"Uptown Girl" Part Two	12 October 2008	10 October 2008	802
Clare, K.C., Alli and Connor begin their Gifted Program classes, but Clare finds it difficult to make friends with the others, believing she is more intelligent than them. K.C. challenges Clare when she tells them she does not care what people's opinions are of her, but after performing a hymn in the cafeteria and gets booed, jeered, and food thrown at her, she runs out upset. After eating lunch with Connor in the Media Immersion classroom the following day, K.C. makes attempts to build bridges with Clare, who reveals that she feels as if she is always in the shadow of her older, and more popular sister, Darcy. Meanwhile, Mia is offered the T-Bombz modelling job and takes Leia with her to the press conference where the official announcement is made. Tom Blake invites them to a private party that night, and while Mia is more than happy to engage in their activities, such as drinking alcohol and group sex, Leia is not, and after chastising Mia, leaves the party. The following day Mia arrives late for school, and while her social status is gaining strength among the hierarchy of Power Squad members Anya, Holly J., and Chante, Leia is disgusted, especially after finding out she slept with Blake. When Danny asks Leia if she thinks he has a chance of being Mia's boyfriend, Leia is forced to tell him the truth. Mia is angry after discovering she was going to be offered the job before she slept with Blake, and upset when Danny tells her what he thinks of her.

You could do something like this. The first summary uses the first sentence as the header. The second episode doesn't have a header at all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. What if I wanted all rows to be hidden or shown based on one button. Such as a "Show guest actors in all episodes" button for a list.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the Manual of Style says that "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, and printing." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Something in the MoS that I agree with. Don't hide show summaries. Gary King (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing question

I'm currently brainstorming a draft for List of Nobel Laureates by country, and with my current table style, I'll have ~500 references, which is basically an added 20-30K added to the article. I was wondering whether I could simply use this as a general reference for the table, as the individual entries (click on the names) have the country. Thoughts on whether this is appropriate? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 has over 800 references, so I don't think 500 would be terrible. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably better to find a list that is an FL to compare with. The most references that I've used in an FL is 230, in List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft, which is the most I've also seen in any FL, I think. Gary King (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's excuseable. The thing is, these six pages [1][2][3][4][5][6] contain all of the information needed; the citations are just subpages of those six. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in referencing every single cell if a set of general references can handle everything. For my governor lists, I general-reference the National Governors Association list of governors for that state; I don't reference the subpages unless necessary for a specific piece of information. Linking the list is sufficient for basic issues like "was he a nobel laureate for this year in this field?" --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/ works. There is no need to have individual reference for every laureate.—Chris! _ct 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Length problem

Is it possible to take a list with only 6 records to be taken to FL status? Is there a minimum no. of records that should be there? It's possible to fulfill all FL criteria with this list, but I wasn't sure if the length would be a problem. I'm talking about List of Presidents of Sri Lanka. Thanks in advance. Chamal ^talk 02:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything about number of entries in WP:WIAFL? If not, then you're OK. – How do you turn this on (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The limit is 10 entries. --TRU_Co 02:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, damn!!! Looks like I'll have to find another one then. BTW, shouldn't this be added to the criteria? Chamal ^talk 03:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It should because the limit is enforced by the FL directors, so I think it should be proposed to include it. I'll make a subsection.--TRU_Co 03:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not enforced by the directors, it's just that community consensus almost always decides that short lists cannot "exemplify our very best work". If someone asks my opinion, I will not tell them "no, it cannot be brought to FLC" or "cannot become featured", but point them to archived discussions on this talk page that show that consensus is against it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Limitations needs to be added to the FL criteria

The limit is 10, but it is nowhere enforced on WP:WIAFL, can it be added?--TRU_Co 03:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. While it would be nice to have some kind of official definition, I think it is very subjective to have a criteria based on it and lists can vary greatly. For example, this page would be able to become a FL, despite still being on the short side, but Seinfeld (season 1) would not although it is a lot longer and more comprehensive. There was a recent discussion about including a notability criterion in the FA criteria (which is sort of along the same lines of a length criteria) here. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I was never really a fan of the 10-rule limit. It's a rather arbitrary number, IMO. Why not just amend the criteria to say "it is of appropriate length" or something? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well what would be the "appropriate length?"--TRU_Co 04:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ten items! :p Gary King (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that' what I thought, but people have mixed reactions to it.--TRU_Co 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think ten is a good number to recommend for the minimum lengths of FLs. If you look at a table with ten entries it doesn't usually look too short, but as I said above, 7, 8 and 9 entries looks like there just isn't enough information being presented. Yes, it is arbitary, and yes, it is personal opinion, but it is what it is. If it becomes a set-in-stone rule at FL?, then no list with 8 or 9 entries would ever be brought here, but it might be that there is one particular list where the community feels that it should become featured. We would never know if it was explicitly stated that it will not be considered. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's very similar to an unofficial minimum length rule at FAC. Gary King (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any sort of rule regarding a minimum length. We are looking for quality, not quantity, in featured material. Using the article above, List of Presidents of Sri Lanka should certainly be able to become featured after significant improvement, even though it is not very long. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar design

Cannibaloki has designed a barnstar here. It's not quite what I was expecting, but I like it. Thoughts? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. The gray color is kinda bland, but that can be changed. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Perhaps draw some lines on the paper to make it more obvious that it's paper, because I didn't catch that immediately. Gary King (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now is colorful, please, take a look. Canniba loki 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Still very nice. So does everyone approve then? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Approve--S R X 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gary King (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Featured List Medal -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)