Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Lists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

small size and merging[edit]

Based on the FLC for 20–20–20 club, I have concerns that the FLCR 3b criteria of "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." could be seen as a loophole to prevent small lists from being promoted. FLCR has no specific minimum size guidelines. In this particular FLC, 3b was cited by opposers, but there was no consensus on a related article it could be merged to, or a new article that should be created.

Is it sufficient to decline promotion when support for promotion exists, but opposition suggests that it could "reasonably be included ..." without successfully demonstrating the destination article in the merge? I'm not looking to overturn this specific FLC per se; I'm more interested in a similar future FLC having clearer guidance on size and discussion guidelines on minimum expectations for citing 3b when opposing.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that opposes along this line should come with a suggested merge destination, but a lack of consensus for such a merge should not invalidate such an oppose. FLC and FLRC serve to identify our very best work, not to create it. Merge discussions should be held on article talk pages. Goodraise 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:FLC asks for "a specific rationale that can be addressed". A merge proposal with with no destination seems akin to a comment to "write it better" without specifics for improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. What is it you want? Goodraise 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Some verbage added to either WP:FLC or here to the effect of "In FLC discussions where consensus is unclear, opposition that cites FLCR 3b stating the list could "reasonably be included as part of a related article" will have less impact if there is no consensus on a reasonable destination article." This would allow for uncontested application of 3b, while also addressing application of 3b that is disputed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of having directors was to make decisions of this nature through good judgement. Reading and evaluating consensus is the primary responsibility of the directors. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
My intent was to help the participants, not necessarily the directors. The FLC left an open question among participants of whether an actionable item exists if the target file is in dispute. It might have saved a lot of discussion among participants if this was clear one way or another, and discussion might have reached a closure in less than 1.5 months.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think compiling a list of how much weight what kind of oppose will carry under what conditions is a direction we should go. Nominations are closed by intelligent beings. Reviewers should be treated as such as well. Instead of trying to invalidate opposers' arguments one should try to convince them to change their opinion. Making nominations take less time is a goal worth pursuing, but this isn't the way. I'm also not inclined to agree that whether or not a consensus to merge exists should be taken into consideration. Reviewers can be expected to name specifically what problems they see a list as having, but finding ways to solve them is asked too much. A criterion 3b oppose should no more obligate a reviewer to initiate a merge discussion than a criterion 1 oppose obligates him or her to copy-edit an article. Again, we're not here to create Wikipedia's best content, just to identify it. Goodraise 04:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
A criteria 1 oppose would at least be expected to mention some specific examples about the article being unprofessional. The difficulty I am having with 3b is that there were no viable examples of where the article could be merged. Unfortunately, reviewers might not have domain expertise to determine an appropriate merge. Perhaps suspicion is the best we can do in this case, which would be unsettling if it were to be used as a loophole for a minimum length requirement.—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
So you don't want reviewers with a set opinion that lists of less than X items should not be featured to get away with opposing based on criterion 3b, is that it? I'm afraid we'll have to rely on closers to see through such attempts to abuse the criterion. A nominator should have the necessary domain expertise to make a convincing case for a list's stand-alone existence even to reviewers (and closers) who lack that expertise. When good arguments fall on deaf ears, then maybe they aren't that great after all, or, if deceitful, criterion-abusing reviewers are simply too numerous to be ignored and too crafty to expose themselves, then perhaps creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit was doomed from the beginning. Goodraise 04:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons and copyright[edit]

I'd like to hear the FL crowd's opinion. Do we care whether media files stored on Commons meet Commons' policy? I don't know how things are handled at FAC, but featured lists tend to include a lot more media files than featured articles, so we might want to be a little bit stricter than them. Treating media files as if they were stored locally and only requiring them to meet the English Wikipedia's policies would have several advantages and disadvantages. The one significant pro I can think of is that it would mean less workload on image reviewers. The cons include that ignoring Commons policy would set a bad example and that files in violation of Commons policy might be deleted without anyone noticing. Conceivably, a list filled with pictures of buildings in a country without freedom of panorama, for example, might suddenly find itself populated by nothing but File:Red files.png. Thoughts? Goodraise 15:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we do have a responsibility to check the suitability of media files, regardless of where they're hosted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Embedded lists and featured list criteria[edit]

There has been some discussion about the inclusion of lists of companies embedded in business articles, specifically companies as providers of Backend as a service. I've suggested at Talk:Backend as a service#Revisiting the issue of company name inclusion that embedded lists of companies in business articles should conform to the Featured List Criteria. Wondering if someone involved in the development of this guideline could weigh in on the suitability of this suggestion. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Commented there. Goodraise 02:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A standalone list or an article with embedded lists[edit]

Hi all! I'd like to invite more comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#A list or a regular article? to help draw a line between sandy water and wet sand in respect of the Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed over lists issue[edit]

Hi, this isn't directly related to FLCs so I'm sorry for posting here. But I'd really like some input from users experienced in lists. I've started a discussion at WP:ACTOR questioning whether it is appropriate for "List of awards and nominations received by X" articles to be comprehensive, or should they be limited re WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Does this policy even apply to lists, given that one of the FLC criteria is that "where practical, a complete set of items" be included? One user has been removing material from awards lists based on this policy, but I disagree with it. The discussion can be found here. I'd very much appreciate input from those involved at FLC. Thanks! --Loeba (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)