Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates
|Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning.
Thank you for your cooperation.
|Threads older than 10 days may be archived by.|
I notice that my nomination for List of public art in the City of Westminster was closed two months to the date of the nomination. Is this the usual practice? It's unfortunate as I had just got hold of a book with which address one of the objections (specifically, to replace a broken reference not picked up by the Checklinks tool). Obviously, I didn't expect the review to go on indefinitely, but it is unfortunate that there is no mention at the top of the page of the specific time frame within which one must secure consensus in favour of promotion. Ham (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ham, There isn't a timeframe set in stone, but in practice, nominations without enough support after approximately two months are archived. Sometimes, if there are two supports, then exceptions are made, but this article had none. Once you've added the new information from the additional source, please feel free to re-nominate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi SchroCat. Even a mention that it's approximately two months might be a good idea—it would give us newbies to the process an idea of what to expect. It'll be some time before I re-nominate as I have competing priorities, and will probably add list row templates to the list and perhaps even change its scope to make FL status more achieveable. Cheers, Ham (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's a really flexible timeframe, depending on how things are moving. If you read the blurb at the top of the nom page, it refers to a ten-day window (which was sort of optimistic for the whole process, but wasn't too far away at some point). What we have now isn't a hard and fast rule: it's my personal guideline to closing. I suspect the other delegates would think it about right, but they may not even have a time frame in their own mind, they'll just know when it's time to close. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think my last many FLCs never got through due to the lack of any reviewers. Does anybody have some brainstorming ideas how to encourage reviewers? I don't think FAC has this problem anywhere near the level here. Nergaal (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated List of How I Met Your Mother characters for FL, because the previous nomination only received one support vote. The article is very long and I can certainly understand why people would not want to review it, especially without knowledge of the show. I wouldn't want people to vote without thoroughly reading the article and thinking about whether it is up to scratch.
But I fear the second nomination will go the same way as the first, as not a single person has commented in nearly a month. So I want to try and do some sort of advertising, but without canvassing. How should I do this? For instance, there are two users that gave comments to a peer review and FL nom of the article: would it be okay to post messages on their user talks asking them (neutrally and politely) if they would consider commenting? (Both users have notes on their user pages saying they are busy in real life, but I'd still like to know — it might be useful to know for future nominations, at least.)
Or, would it be okay to post something like this on my user page:
- @Bilorv:You could post neutrally-worded-notices to the bottom of your own user talk page and to WikiProject talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to the topic of the article, that's totally fine. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
@FLC delegates: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Asia Cup centuries/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ICC Champions Trophy centuries/archive1, both promoted long ago are yet to be closed. —Vensatry (ping) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Adding a second nomination
I note in the instructions "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" and recognise why this is necessary. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 now has three supports, no opposes and I believe all comments have been "substantially" addressed. Could the featured list director or delegate indicate whether it would be OK to add another nomination which uses the same format etc?— Rod talk 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your situation is exactly why multiple nominations are permitted under limited circumstances, as we don't want excessive bottlenecks for editors whose lists go through FLC quickly. Consider permission for a second FLC granted, and best of luck with both of your nominations. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)