Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Reference checking

Are people checking references? We don't have a consistent reference checker so it's hard to tell if reviews also take into account the references used in lists. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I will try to incorporate explicit source checks in my reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm running the checklinks tool on the FLC page. If I find a problem, I will talk (!!!). Cannibaloki 22:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the links check that I have done on the lists seem irrelevant, since Dabomb87, has made comments even when I confirm that the links are OK. So I will leave this job entirely to him. (no drama) Regards, Cannibaloki 23:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My apologies to Cannibaloki, there were a couple times that I truly did not see his source check comments; other times there were a couple of sourcing issues to be addressed, so I had to comment. As an aside, I would encourage all reviewers to look at sources as we don't want this trend toward specialization as has partially happened at FAC (one editor does sources only, another does images only, etc.). Also, if a reviewer has to shoulder the of checking sources, then they would not have as much time to do a full review of articles and could get burned out with FLC reviewing in general. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
There were some times when I commented on sources even after noticing Cannibaloki's comments; this was because I was not sure whether he was checking source reliability and information in addition to their link status. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes in FL totals between May 11 and November 11, 2008

I was curious to see what kind of changes have occured in the FL numbers, so I took an old set of data I made on May 11, and took the numbers from November 11 (exactly 6 months later) and compared them in convenient table form. Note that the totals have been adjusted for any major changes in categorization that have occured (such as video games getting their own or the tallest buildings lists switching from engineering to architecture) but it's more than possible that I missed a few small changes. Only one category has shrunk.

Topic May 11
Total 		May 11 % Nov. 11
Total 		Nov. 11 % Change in Total Change in %
Sports and recreation 223 31.85% 355 33.12% +132 +1.27%
Media 88 12.57% 126 11.75% +38 -0.82%
Politics and government 64 9.14% 66 6.16% +2 -2.98%
Geography and places 62 8.86% 63 5.88% +1 -2.98%
Music 61 8.71% 166 15.49% +105 +6.78%
Biology and medicine 32 4.57% 34 3.17% +2 -1.40%
Geology, Geophysics and meteorology 26 3.71% 38 3.54% +12 -0.17%
Art, architecture and archaeology 24 3.43% 39 3.64% +15 +0.21%
Culture and society 16 2.29% 19 1.77% +3 -0.52%
Education 16 2.29% 32 2.99% +16 +0.70%
Military and military history 8 1.14% 11 1.03% +3 -0.11%
Literature and theatre 15 2.14% 16 1.49% +1 -0.65%
Awards, decorations and vexillology 10 1.43% 22 2.05% +12 +0.62%
Video gaming 8 1.14% 17 1.59% +9 +0.45%
Law 8 1.14% 8 0.75% 0 -0.39%
Religion, mysticism and mythology 7 1.00 % 7 0.65% 0 -0.35%
Business, economics and finance 6 0.86% 16 1.49% +10 +0.63%
Transport 5 0.71% 12 1.12% +7 +0.41%
Chemistry and minerology 4 0.57% 3 0.28% -1 -0.29%
Physics and astronomy 9 1.29% 10 0.93% +1 -0.36%
Computing 2 0.29% 2 0.19% 0 -0.10%
Mathematics 2 0.29% 2 0.19% 0 -0.10%
Royalty, nobility and heraldry 2 0.29% 3 0.28% +1 -0.01%
Food and drink 1 0.14% 1 0.09% 0 -0.05%
Engineering and techonology 1 0.14% 1 0.09% 0 -0.05%
History 1 0.14% 1 0.09% 0 -0.05%
Language and linguistics 0 0% 1 0.09% +1 +0.09%
Philosophy and psychology 0 0% 0 0% 0 0
Total 700 - 1072 - +372

November 11 FLs, May 11 FLs

Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 — Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 4 December 2008

Question

Does anyone think that List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches can be a FL? It has 9 items, just less than the 10 items requirement. But I think it is an excellent list. Any thoughts.—Chris! ct 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, just wait until Iavaroni gets the axe ;-) (two more months of losing should do it) In any case, given that this is a table-based FL with no extenuating circumstances (i.e. big blocks of text in the table or similar), I'm inclined to lean on the 10 item minimum. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks —Chris! ct 18:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, are you intending to make the category of NBA head coach lists a Featured Topic? If so, what will be the lead article? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I initially thought List of current National Basketball Association head coaches should be the lead article. But I think this is insufficient. Either expand this to include all coaches or make a new one. I favor the first option because the latter requires someone to bring the current coach list to FL standard.—Chris! ct 02:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG!

Scorpion0422 and Matthewedwards isn't editing right now, and some of the FLC nominations should be archived! What should we do now?! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew just did them. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed 40 minutes ago, but thanks for notifying. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There really is no need to worry.. Even if we miss the cut off time for the bot, both Scorpion and I know how to do it manually. Luckily this time the bot was still online, cause it's a bit of a ball ache ;) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

10 item list

Resolved
 – Expanded & taken to peer review.

I have just developed BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award, which has 10 items. I realise that this meets the unwritten minimum, but I thought I'd enquire if anybody would still consider this list to be too short? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it looks short because the list isn't really saying much, maybe adding a notes column or adding another column.--SRX 22:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you should add more columns, plus the table barely meets featured list criteria. Just peer review it just in case. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I have added in an extra columns and some notes and will request feedback at peer review. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama

And I thought the theatrics of something like this (and all previous nominations) would never be a problem here. See the above FLC for rampant incivility from members of the NHRP WikiProject, who apparently believe that their standards are perfect. It's ironic they're doing this considering that the nominator is doing an admirable job in fixing up the article. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Will tread carefully around this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Sephiroth's ire derives largely from a comment of mine which he perceived as an insult, when none was intended. I apologize, here as well as where the offense was taken. Note, however, a reasonable person could consider Sephiroth's comment here to be sarcastic and, well, incivil, to be slurring a whole group that way. I don't think that the NRHP wikiproject members, including me, think that the style that the group developed for tables of NRHP listings is perfect. Rather, there are limitations in the wiki-markup language and its ability to present tables, and I and others tried to work out something that worked reasonably well in conveying information. I freely agree that improvements are possible, and that a discussion within one wikiproject can be insular. Within the NRHP wikiproject, I have repeatedly commented that getting more outside comments via the FL and other review processes would be worthwhile. I personally had in mind Tufte's style considerations expressed in his books on visual presentation of information, with regards to using color to provide meaningful enhancement, though I do not presume to claim to have done anything that great. I don't take any offense here. I am just back from a wiki-break, by the way, and may be interested in contributing in other FL reviews. Cheers, doncram (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Doncram, thanks for your understanding. We at FLC are as dedicated as everybody else to improving articles to the best of our abilities. I would hate to see this article not be promoted because of a disconnect between Wikiproject and community standards and a silly overblown argument. If you helped to review FLCs, your efforts would be much appreciated because there always seems to be a shortage of reviewers at FLC :) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in the promotion of FLCs

The List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, which I submitted at FLC for the second time, was not promoted and had its nomination closed by Matthewedwards three days ago. No reason was given for this closing, but I assume the FL director in question considered that consensus had not been reached. The list received support from one user (Dabomb87), whose comments were all promptly addressed. An independent user (Cannibaloki) confirmed the trustworthiness of the sources used. Finally, David Fuchs did an extensive image review. His remarks were all taken into account, with only images confirmed to be in the public domain in the US being kept in the article.

Some users might consider this not enough for the list in question to be promoted to FL status. This may be true. However, what strikes me is that other lists with exactly similar FLC pages were recently promoted. For instance, the FLC page of the List of premiers of New Brunswick or the FLC page of the List of premiers of Manitoba were both identical to the FLC page of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list. Each time, only one user (Dabomb87) made comments; his remarks were taken into account in all three cases, which led him to support all three lists. In all three cases, an independent user confirmed the accuracy of the sources used, and an extensive image review was conducted by an experienced reviewer such as Awadewit or David Fuchs. The list of premiers of Manitoba and that of the premiers of New Brunswick did not have anything more than the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list (no additional support votes, no additional comments), yet they were both promoted by Scorpion0422 while the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list was not.

There is no rational way of explaining this bizarre situation. Only two elements might justify the outcome differences:

  • The premiers lists were submitted by a very experienced and well-known user (Gary King), while the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list was not. If this was really why the first two lists were promoted while the latter was not, it would be extremely problematic. This would imply that some users, because they are better known by the FL directors, have their lists treated in a more lenient way.
  • The FLCs of the premiers lists were closed by Scorpion0422, while the FLC of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list was closed by Matthewedwards. If this were indeed the true reason behind the outcome differences, then it would be even more problematic. This would mean that the two FL directors promote FLs using different standards, with Matthewedwards generally being stricter than Scorpion0422 in defining consensus.

I am raising this issue not out of personal bitterness, but for the sake of the credibility of the FL process itself. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people telling me that my work is not up to Wikipedia's standards; I wouldn't even be hurt if someone told me that my work was plain crap. However, what bothers me a lot is to find out that, under exactly similar circumstances, FLCs submitted by other users are promoted while mine is not. Until recently, the FL rules defined "consensus" using an objective and quantifiable criterion: consensus was deemed to have been reached as long as there was a minimum of four support votes. However, the recent changes in the FL rules have made the definition of consensus the sole prerogative of the FL directors. Although I am by no means questioning the legitimacy nor the experience of either Scorpion0422 or Mathewedwards (both have been elected by the community, and have contributed to several FLs), I think it is somewhat problematic that the FL directors be allowed to determine what constitutes consensus in such a purely subjective manner and without providing any kind of explanation in their edit summaries as to why they are promoting/not promoting a particular list. Could someone please explain to me why, in the case of the premiers lists, support by a single user and a successful image review were deemed sufficiently "consensual" for the two lists to be promoted, while in the case of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty list, support by the same user and a similarly successful image review were not?

Sorry for making this long. Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think that the article did not have any consensus to even be promoted or not promoted, and should have been restarted. Also, I only problem I have with the article is that the prose was too short for this type of topic, and you should have explained more about the dynasty. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the two premier lists, I felt that they were both at a level comparable to the previous premier FLs. There was only one support, but in both cases I left them open longer than needed to be in hopes of getting more comments, but none were coming. After looking through them, I saw no reason why the should have failed, so I promoted them. I don't know why Matthew archived your list, so I'm not going to speak for him.

I don't really like your allegations of favourtism. Just because several of his FLs have been promoted with minimal support, it doesn't mean that we are being biased towards him. Now, if you could get some proof (like if most of his FLCs were being promoted with majority opposition) then that would be another thing, but your logic seems to be based largely on "mine failed, but this guys lists were promoted! It must be because of bias!" -- Scorpion0422 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr rant. Submit the list again. Trying to make this a huge issue out of nothing isn't constructive or helpful. There is no favoritism, there is no grand conspiracy, the process is not broken. If you want more commentary, ask the relevant WikiProject. We give our directors latitude to make their decisions because of their knowledge of what constitutes consensus and FL-quality on a case-to-case basis. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue with the previous two editors, but I think this user is raising a somewhat reasonable point. In my opinion, if the definition of the consensus is uneven, it is hard for people to know what the expectation of a FLC really is. This may even discourage editors from trying to bring a list of an underrepresented topic to FL standard. Again, I not saying Matthew's decision is wrong, but I just think this is a good point.—Chris! ct 02:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, it is precedence. There have been many premiers lists submitted to FLC; the collective feedback for the earlier ones has resulted in the later premier lists' being submitted to FLC already polished, meaning that less feedback is needed to improve the article. In the case of List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, we have not seen a list like that here in a while, so the directors have no standard to aid their decisions. Therefore, one pair of eyes is not enough (David Fuchs only did images) for an article type that has been seen much at FLC. As thorough as I try to be in my reviews, I cannot catch everything. That being said, I do not endorse or disagree with Matthew's archiving; either decision is fine with me as long as there is a good reason. Before jumping to conclusions, let us wait for Matthew's reply. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(←)Bear with me here, my response may jump around a little bit :/ ...

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty/archive2 had one Support and two other people commented on sourcing and images. The image concerns were responded to, but it was the nominator who capped the image review. While David Fuchs did reply to the nominator's response, he did not actually say that his concerns were met. Only one person commented and was satisfied with the actual list and prose. When I looked at the list and its FLC when I closed, I happened to notice that it failed part of WP:FOOT, in that the alphabetical footnotes do not appear in alphabetical order. I would say it's not enough by itself but it showed that if that had been missed, there could well be other things that were missed too (no fault on those who did comment -- we're only human and can't be expected to find everything). I felt that after over two weeks the nomination was not likely to get any new comments, and that there was a chance that it did need further reviewing, and that I could not determine community consensus either way. Those three reasons are why I didn't promote the list at this time.

WRT to the Premier lists and why they were promoted with very similar reviews, I think that Dabomb87 pretty much hit the nail on the head. The nominator of those lists, Gary King, is an editor very experienced with both FLC and FAC. He is extremely familiar with the requirements and expectations of a page before nominating it, and so they require less feedback because they are usually close to already meeting the FLC criteria. Each subsequent premier list he works on can also take advantage of the comments at the FLCs of the earlier ones, and since they have all been nominated and passed recently it can be assumed that the community agrees that the content, style, etc of the pages meet the criteria without it having to be stated at each FLC. On the other hand, there are only three monarch-y lists at WP:FL - List of French monarchs, List of Portuguese monarchs, and List of Sultans of Zanzibar. The first two were promoted in 2006 but have both gone through WP:FLRC and the Sultan list was promoted on July 1, 2008. We don't get many other monarch-y FLCs, and so there isn't a "pre-exisiting consensus" to look at.

I would ask everyone here to remember that there is no deadline. Just because a list didn't become featured today, doesn't mean it can never become featured. I don't like to "restart" nominations but I have occasionally done it, usually when it is close to the bottom of the list and has recieved only comments from just one person that isn't a Support or Oppose. Archiving isn't supposed to say "you failed" to the nominator, just that the nomination failed to be promoted.

Also, I am aware there is a shortage of reviewers at FLC and FAC. The Rambling Man used to review each nomination until he went on a world tour. I also reviewed every nomination until about 3 months ago, when horrible real life issues meant that Wikipedia was one of my lowest priorities. All I can suggest is that nominators ask reviewers to take another look at the page and revisit the FLC when their concerns have been addressed, and actually go to people's talk pages and ask them to review (not support or oppose) their lists and give feedback at FLCs. It would also be nice that if people who submitted lists did some reviewing. At time of writing, there are 29 FLCs from 27 different people (including co-noms). Of those 27, 18 have not taken the time to comment at other FLCs. If your nomination still doesn't get the attention you were hoping, don't take offense when I don't promoted it. I am only interested in WP:FL containing the very best lists that we have to offer, and not -- to put it bluntly -- babying people's egos by caring about how many stars they have earned. I do not practice favouritism; I have promoted FLCs submitted by the "regulars", and I have archived FLCs from those same people as well. I pay little attention to who the nominator is and I completely ignore WP:WBFLN.

BomBom, you said this isn't a personal attack, and I don't take it to be. My interest is Wikipedia and I welcome any discussion about FL/FLC and its operation. As you said, a list was originally promoted if it had received four support votes as a minimum for consensus. That rule was abolished because the original nominator counted as one support vote, the nominations were open to vote-stacking and drive-by votes, four was an completely abitary figure, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. I don't mind if people want to discuss bringing that rule back (or discuss keeping it abolished) but I do wonder if we have enough reviewers to get 4 supports.

I hope I answered everything but if not, let me know. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to write such a detailed response. If the FL directors could be kind enough to write a brief explanation (similar to the one Matthewedwards did above) in their edit summary as to why they are closing a nomination without promoting the list in question, I think it would be extremely useful for the nominator. It would give him insight into the reasons behind the failure of his nomination, and would probably avoid the kind of frustration I experienced. Regards. BomBom (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Archived and Deleted?

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes was archived tonight, but instead of just archiving, for some reason its been completeld deleted?? Is this part of whatever software screw up is happening right now that remove all the JS stuff from the site, including breaking Twinkle and Friendly? Either way, shouldn't it be undeleted? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't actually deleted, it was moved to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes/archive3 and for some reason the old redirect was deleted. I think it was because of a glitch (but I'm not positive). For more information, ask Gimmetrow. -- Scorpion0422 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, its weird...I think the redirect needs recreated though, since it would be used for future nomination when it is actually ready, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been that way for two months (since October 25). Something changed in the MediaWiki software, and moves via script stopped leaving a redirect. FAC has a preload for a new page. Among other things, this preload adds a transclusion of Wikipedia:Featured article tools which generates a list of FAC archive links, so a redirect isn't needed for a new nomination. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joel Selwood/archive2.) In fact, the redirect was confusing to enough FAC nominators that it required a second edit to replaced it with a starter page. Eventually, FAC will probably have the nomination start at a /archiveN or equivalent page so the moves won't happen at all. But that takes some coordination and time to set up. Gimmetrow 06:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh...I hadn't seen any others get deleted so it surprised me. If its not causing problems, though, that's good to know. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that FLC does not use a preload, so old archives are not linked to. Gary King (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How strict is the minimum

Hiya all, I've seen a bit written about the "minimum 10 entries" rule (see for example three sections or so above). I was wondering how strict this was, as I had an eye to nominating this, but obviously won't if there's no chance of it passing with only 8 entries.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For traditional tables, the ten item minimum is fairly strict. Exceptions are largely when there's significant amounts of content in the table (i.e. an episode list, list of works, or similar). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
For your article, it is a hard decision, as there were only 8 Australians who have led the Tour de France general classification in the last 27 years, and you won't know when the approximate time the list will reach 10 lists, but with percentages, your list has approximately 8 more years until you get 10 entries. For other lists that can reach 10 entries in 5 years or so, those will have the strict minimum of 10 entries. For the lists that cannot get anymore entries, but has around 7 to 10, those will maybe pass the rule. So like I said, your article is a tough decision.

P.S. This is only from my perspective. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 10:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sephiroth, because seeing your list, it isn't really saying much but statistics, maybe if notes were added or more columns, it could possibly pass by the 10 limit rule, this is also my perspective.--SRX 17:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
It has notes. I really can't think what else I could add... :( Daniel (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Activity in FLRC

The last comment added on FLRC dated back to December 21st. Don't you guys think we need more users to contribute to the process? -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 10:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we do, because some of those nomination stay on there for well over a month at times.--SRX 15:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's the holiday season. I haven't had a whole lot of time to comment on nominations there. One of them is stalled because I gave a user a couple weeks for his vacation/break/something like that, I'm waiting on Dabomb87 to check on another, and I haven't peeked at the others yet. It's not that big of a deal as FLRC is a low-volume process (I know I'm going to regret saying that), but I'll try to leave some comments now. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have revisited one FLRC, and I will try to jumpstart another. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I have made comments of some sort on all four FLRCs, so hopefully there will be more activity in the coming days. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Copying this thread to WT:FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk)

Sortable tables and Mozilla Firefox

A lot of users use Mozilla Firefox here on Wikipedia due to some features only available for FF. However, as of late, sortable tables have had a glitch with Firefox, and when I review lists, the sortable tables do not work for me. I'm just letting people know who do not use FF to check the sortability of the tables, as there could always be a coding problem.--Truco 02:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a problem with Twinkle and Friendly, see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Table sorting does not work when either Friendly or Twinkle is enabled and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Sortable tables & Firefox 3.0.5. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay, I guess I'll wait for the VP result.--Truco 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So is there anyone that doesn't use Huggle and/or Twinkle that can tell us if sorting on Firefox works? Or does it not work for every Firefox user? -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the VP, when you remove Twinkle and Friendly (not Huggle) sorting works for Firefox, right now they are trying to find out what the glitch is with the scripts.--Truco 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Peer review have to be linked twice?--Truco 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's linked more than twice. In any case, WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply outside the article namespace. The links are meant to be convenient for people who don't read the entire criteria—and it's guaranteed that not everyone reads the whole thing. Gary King (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well I just found it odd to have it linked more than once.--Truco 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it'll be a great idea if we do what WP:FA does, put a star next to the language page link if the article is featured in another language version, on the list left of the page. Thanks in advance if commenting. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 11:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Which Wikipedias besides English have featured lists? Anyways, this doesn't have any technical limitations; you can use {{Link FA}} to indicate that the article is featured on another Wikipedia. I think a bot does it automatically for featured articles, though, by checking for recently promoted featured articles across multiple Wikipedias. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
That will be great if a bot can do this instead of a human. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone else going to comment on this section? This is because it'll be kind of cool to have this for FLs. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 10:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone would have to check each different language article for every single FL. Not all languages have FL processes either. It's going to be a lot of work and IMO doesn't add anything to the articles itself. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I just thought it might be a good idea. Also, Gary King said that a bot can do it, so I don't think it'll be hard for the bot operator to do that kind of process. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 01:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

These are the wikipedias that have a FL process:

-- Scorpion0422 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to think about it, a bot does do it for FAs, but it will be next to impossible to FLs since FLs do not use common names. FAs, for instance, can be a person, product, company, band, etc. name, which is almost always the same in every language. Lists, however, first of all have the words "List of" which must be translated, and then there's the way each list's title is phrased; it's different depending on the language. If someone really has the time, then by all means, go for it, but the gain I think is very little. Gary King (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It'll be great if you could ask the bot operator to comment on this to see if he will be willing to do this. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 02:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that this is the bot: User:LinkFA-Bot. You can find all the information you need on that page. Gary King (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my bot.
The main problem with this 'Featured lists' approach when using the template 'Link FA' for it is that both my bot and the python bot (for those who happen to run the 'featured' module for it) must be changed to handle the en-WP "special", for there the Link FA is allowed to point to featured lists, whereas in the German WP, it's NOT allowed to. By the way, the above mentioned German category is "Featured lists and Portals", not only lists...
So yes, if you decide to do something like this, I can add a few lines of code and tell my bot to maintain it - but I'd ask to have a separate Template for this, like "Link FL". It can have the same code like "Link FA", naturally, which would mean no additional cheats in the JavaScript / CSS styles would be needed (after all, the Link FA - code itself is minimal), but if you use an own template, you don't need to recode existing bots for a "specialty" of the en-WP. Afterwards, I got (nearly) all I'd need for this task: The list above (which tells the bot how to recognize / locate featured lists), and the template name that tells the bot how to recognize marked links. Guandalug (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
So is there anything that I can help you with? Doing this to globalize WP:FL will be great. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 03:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Here in en-WP: Create the template "Link to Featured List" (Template:Link FL for example) and make sure the community is okay with that (or say we assume it it, and my bot can and will start). As this is a very similar task to the original one I asked for a botflag for, I will in turn assume this task is in accordance to the botflag request ;). Whether other language versions will follow suit and also have their featured lists marked will have to be seen - if it's working here, I can (and most likely will) ask the de-WP - community about implementing the same feature for their lists. Somebody might want to do the same in the simple english wikipedia.... and so on. If there's more wikipedia-versions having "featured lists", I would need to know about them, of course. Guandalug (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to reply or comment on this section? I'm starting to get this up ASAP. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented the template. Anything else I could do? -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I slightly changed the template (and adapted the documentation). The reason for my template change: Without it, we'd need an admin changing the Common.js (and possibly Common.css) - the way it's now, the Link FL template internally works JUST like Link FA, just isn't "recognized" by the usual bots (and thus not gets deleted as a "Link FA pointing not to an 'article', but a list" - error). I will teach my bot how to set those marks and run it somewhen soon - tomorrow, I guess (it's currently doing its January Link FA run). Guandalug (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update and all the effort you put in to this. Without you, it would almost be impossible to globalize this. I always try to help when needed. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 01:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I created the list of templates the bot recognizes as 'Excellent List' markup, it's stored here. Unfortunately, I could add neither italian (the link above links to their 'featured articles' list, and thus to a template that's already handled by my LinkFA - maintaining bot), nor zh-yue (who, albeit claming to have a "Featured List" system, don't have any such lists, nor a template to mark them. Thus, I have 10 templates (including the one here at the english wikipedia) my bot can watch and use. It's going to run in a few moments. Guandalug (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
242 edits later, I can announce success, at least for the en-wp. Next run next month (I guess a monthly update ought to suffice). Guandalug (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How does criterion 7 relate to upcoming events?

I've recently started to work on a page closely tied to a certain major sporting event that takes place on February 1. If I nominate the page here on the 13th or 14th of this month, it could potentially be promoted or archived a week or so before the game at the earliest. Before I do that, however, I need to know what process the stability criterion plays. Is a list on an upcoming event considered unstable enough to be failed for that reason alone? Nothing that I saw in the talk page archives has anything to do with this. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing how Cr 7 is stability, information could change rapidly by many users before the time of the actual Super Bowl, and if its promoted before then, revisions that could be made later may not meet the FL Criteria, so its best to have things straitened out before coming to FLC, that's how I interpret it.--Truco 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am assuming that the article in question is Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award. There will only be one new addition after the Super Bowl, I don't think that it will make much of a difference. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've worked on a lot of articles relating to events/awards around the time that they were held/announced. The only time I ever ran into stability issues was with the List of IIHF World Championship medalists and that was due to a POVish dispute over the least important part of the article (the medal table). The short answer: No, I don't think there will be much of a problem, but it might not hurt to wait. -- Scorpion0422 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is withdrawal possible?

Can I withdraw a nom, or is it better to leave it until it is failed? The nom is this and both me and the other editor don't have time the time right now to make the necessary changes. What would you suggest? Chamal talk 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you leave a note on the FLC page stating a withdrawal, it can be removed from the main FLC page by an admin or non-admin. It will then be processed by GimmeBot on its next run (currently 0:00 UTC Wednesday). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and Done. Chamal talk 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I have now archived the nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Difference between a list and an article

I've been working on Controlled substances in Oregon and it's kind of listy (listish?). Would it be appropriate as a featured list candidate? Whether it's comprehensive is debatable. I'm trying to use it as an easy reference overview, without going into the amount of detail at Alcohol in Oregon and other possible articles that could be linked to in it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be more of an article because like its sister article you linked above, its main intention is more of an article than a list. There are some lists that are an exception that have prose, but are actually listing something in tables/list format.--TRUCO 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should just compare Discography of Final Fantasy III and Hilary Duff discography. The first one is a good article, while the other one is a featured list. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations in lists of people

Why do some featured lists of people have a citation for every person and some don't, even though they have been featured recently (within the last year)? What is the standard here? one with a cite for every person, one without such cites. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the one without citations to every entry has its content verified by a general reference, its just not formatted right. The other one has every entry cited because there isn't a general reference to verify the list.--TRUCO 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The ref used in the Marine one doesn't actually list the people. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
If you click on the peoples' names, you can get the info. I don't know what you are getting at here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There appear to have been two standards on cites for FLs. One standard that each entry must have a cite, the other that the linked article provides the cite. The issues I see with the linked articles providing the cite are:

  • We don't allow other Wikipedia articles to be used as references
  • There is a presumption that the linked articles have proper cites that are properly maintained
  • Reuse becomes an issue; if a FL is selected for CD or printed release, the linked articles may not be selected

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Which FLs are using other Wikipedia articles as references? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for images

Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Per this conversation, are the only people allowed to nominate FLCs "experienced editors"- i.e. people who already have several FLs? I'm not experienced enough with the FLC process to know. Thanks.   jj137 (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jj! There is no need to be an experienced editor to submit—how do you think those editors became "experienced"? The only requirement is that the nominator(s) be the primary contributors to the article. Other than that, it is fine. However, I recommend getting a potential Featured list candidate reviewed before FLC, especially if this is your first time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, I should have thought of it that way. :) I've gotten a couple before, so I mostly know what I'm doing, however that quote from SandyGeorgia just made me somewhat confused. Thanks for clarifying.   jj137 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Oops, nevermind, I misread what she wrote.   jj137 (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Content forks

There has been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals about splitting off information from the main article. In this case, the list of finals and finalists has been split off from the main FIFA World Cup article. Some at the current FLC feel that this is a "content fork", and should not be an article. What does anybody else think? My feeling is that dozens of sports head coach, manager and draft pick lists have been promoted at FLC since last June or so. In this way, we have set a precedent. Should we continue to allow such lists, or should we nominate them for deletion? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Some "forks" are OK, though, aren't they, based on their size relative to the main article? List of Aston Villa F.C. managers, for example, is far too large to realistically merge into Aston Villa F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So is it subjective then? If a team has six managers, do not create a separate article, but if a team had 17 managers, then it would make sense to split off an article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me, although clearly others do not feel the same - List of WWE Divas Champions (admittedly not a FL) has been spun off from WWE Divas Championship despite only having two entries..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is already an unwritten rule that if a list has less than 10 entries, it cannot attain FL status. So perhaps, we should expand on that and say that if a list's contents can be contained on a main article, do not even split off an article with those items. For the WWE Divas example, move the items back to the main article and delete the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I raised the point that you mentioned above and feel I should comment here. Firstly I need to make it clear that I think lists have an important role to play and am definitely not anti-lists (I have created several lists myself and was pleased to get one of them to Featured List status). However I think that any list needs to be worthwhile within the context of Wikipedia: being a good standalone piece of work isn't enough if the same content is or could be duplicated elsewhere. There seems to be a trend to create a list for the sake of it (maybe because making a Featured List is easier than creating a Featured Article) without consideration for the main topic, but since lists often are related to a main topic, the question of content forking could become an issue. Here are some good reasons for creating separate lists as I see it (there may be more):
List of FIFA World Cup finals does not meet any of those, and I see no reason for its existence - as a a standalone piece it is excellent, but Wikipedia is not about standalone articles, it is about linking everything together coherently. All that said, I certainly wouldn't rush to delete anything, as everything should be looked at carefully on a case-by-case basis, but where there is clear duplication of content or where the list could be managed within a parent article, I think consideration of a merge would be sensible. I also propose that content forking (or lack of) be added to the Featured List criteria, possibly something like "Not a content fork. It does not contain information that is (or could be) similarly presented within an existing article." The wording needs improving but hopefully you see what I'm trying to get across. --Jameboy (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll put in my two pence. (Please note I am not commenting on the "List of FIFA World Cup finals", but on forking/splitting in general.) The way I see it, the real problem here is considering when the size of the "list" in a main article is large enough to be spun off into its own list. IMO if the main article retains the list after "splitting" then surely that is a fork (an FL example might be that List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches could very easily be put into Atlanta Falcons#Head coaches). The unwritten 10 item rule already exists and prevents silly small lists and unnecessary splitting to some extent, but we may need to re-iterate to people that meeting this does not automatically justify having its own list. Whether something needs to be added to the criteria, WP:FL? already states "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content" so I don't think it needs its own criteria, but maybe just a case of linking to content policy and guidelines at the top. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I in a way see how it is content forking because prose wise, there isn't much being added that the main article doesn't say. But then wouldn't many FL's be content forking if they can be their own section in the main article, like the Atlanta Falcons head coaches list someone mentioned above? --TRUCO 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I could see many sports lists theoretically being "content forks". There is a large segment of FLs that would stay intact—awards lists and discographies, as well as timelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We should only judge a list based on the FL criteria. It does say "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content", but there is no way we can possibly judge that, and must to some degree WP:AGF that it does. WP:AFD and WP:PM are the proper forums for deciding whether a page is a content fork or not. I attempted to open a deletion discussion here, but it was closed prematurely because I did not !vote "delete". FLC is not the right venue for deciding whether a page is a content fork or should exist and we shouldn't attempt to. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Its best to actually discuss it here since "Featured lists" of all topics may be content forking and we may need to reach a consensus on whether to keep or demote them.--TRUCO 02:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I really doubt they all are content forks. If we're discussing already featured lists, then they should individually go through AfD or PM, and then WP:FLRC. As for the World Cup list, I have asked for the AfD closure to be reviewed here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I really understand the argument. Any list can be in an article. There are no technical limitations to the length of an article, so an list, no matter how long, could really be in a different article. However, any set of information with enough interest, background information or notability can merit a list. Grsz11Review 20:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I usually prefer a standalone list. Often feels like undue weight to a subject to stick a table of decent size into an article. That said, for the purposes of FLC, saying that the list itself is inappropriate is an AfD argument, not an FLC one. I would consider such opposes to be non-actionable. They're free to bring an AfD forward with a consensus to merge or delete; from there WP:FLRC becomes a simple step should such consensus materialize. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Short versus annotated lists

A situation at List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.) brings up an issue that also arises in other contexts. Featured lists tend to be annotated or contain images and text, like [1], but some readers/editors want a "short list" like [2]. Is there any reasonable way to satisfy both camps? Any precedent? Gimmetrow 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Per consistency and FL standards, the first revision is the correct type of list.--TRUCO 503 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What are the advantages of a short list? I also noticed that when re-creating the article, the editor didn't include the albums...o.O -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
There have been problems with vandals who have sneakily reinstated these "short lists" and directed all incoming links toward the short list. The accepted format is the annotated list. WP:RECORD has 16 Featured lists, all of which follow the annotated format. The only complaints we have had are from an IP editor and their various sock puppets. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I see an advantage using the first revision because it says more and lists more.--TRUCO 503 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Featured lists are supposed to be visually appealing, and I don't see that in the short list. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess we have consensus? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Three people really isn't a consensus, I would have at least another reviewer's input.--TRUCO 503 02:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. We'll try this again. This isn't an argument on what a featured list ought to look like. The question is - are there any topics on Wikipedia covered by both annotated lists and short lists? The answer to that is: Yes. Some TV series have annotated lists for each season and a short list for all episodes together. Now, is there any way to generalize that or make that applicable to the Hot 100 case? Gimmetrow 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen such a list of TV episodes, could you provide a link? I suppose we could, but then more issues pop up. Besides the extra work of creating redundant lists, we would face a dilemna: In regular articles, which would we link to, the annotated list or the short list? Then there is the issue of the template: {{USNumber1s}}. Which type do we link to from there? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, this edit shows that the user simply has ownership issues. Would you mind explaining in a bit more detail what it is you are thinking of (are you thinking two seperate pages or two tables on the same page?) -- Scorpion0422 02:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, that editor that Scorpion was talking about is probably one editor trying to impose his/her own type of list against consensus. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've run into this sort of thing enough that it would be nice to have a solution. With TV series, if a show runs a few series it's easy enough to list every episode in a non-annotated list, and have each of the seasons be longer/annotated. See List of The Simpsons episodes for an example. Historical Hot 100 lists aren't going to change. The lists generated by that editor were very small, maybe 6k for the table. Perhaps these could be grouped in decades, and that editor would be satisfied? Gimmetrow 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of having one master list, especially since some songs were number one in consecutive years. The problem is that with 69 years of history it's going to get awfully long, unless you split it, but then what would be the cut-off? -- Scorpion0422 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Decades seem logical. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I found an example in the UK Singles Chart, apparently each year have a page with a summary and the everything like: 1996 in British music, now there is also a page for the List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK), which covers the entire decade but is basically the same information. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there was no consensus over which type of list to use. However, there are FL precedents using the annotated list, as linked above by Frcm. So we instead used it and FL reviewers seem not to quibble about it. --Efe (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this was discussed before...but

Resolved

..why can't the FLC noms have a pre-load article like it is on FAC, with a nominators stamp, toolbox, and the name of the article already loaded into the article?--TRUCO 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I never use it, I believe that it is useful for others. So, I would like to see it here, too. If enough people support this, then let's just add it to the template? Gary King (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. It would be very useful, IMO. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. It helps with dab links, but in this way however, I think we would have to get rid of "cap" templates because it will slow down the load time wouldn't it?--TRUCO 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
No, because the toolboxes are not transcluded on the main FLC page or the archive pages. As such, it will not affect the load time. Woody (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. So I think it will help off new FLC nominators and it will help reviewers to see how readable the content is (dabs, etc.), plus it will make nominations much easier. So I wonder why FAC doesn't allow cap templates?--TRUCO 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Because cap templates themselves affect the load times, especially if lots of people use them. At FAC, there is usually a lot of discussion about prose which takes up huge amount of space and therefore affects load times when hidden in cap templates 50 times over. Woody (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
So its good at FLC?--TRUCO 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the directors feelings to be honest. I haven't seen it actively discouraged here, whereas it is at FAC. Woody (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean I know cap templates are acceptable here at FLC, but will it affect the load time if we add the new pre-load templates?--TRUCO 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We will have to test and see. I think that the ability to cap is important (so much easier and efficient than striking). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If the boxes are enclosed in <noinclude> tags, (as they are at FAC) they will not be transcluded on the main pages and will not affect load times in any way. Woody (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean the cap templates right?--TRUCO 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

So whats the followup on this? I generally see the acceptance of the idea to have a pre-load template like at FAC. Can we have a 'discussion here where people can voice their opinions by supporting, opposing, or commenting (not voting). In addition, is there a way to get this on the ads located on the watchlist?--TRUCO 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support such a motion if it did not affect reviewers' ability to cap resolved comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone stated above that if they are in tags, they will be fine. --TRUCO 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, I would be bold and do it if no-one objects in say a week. There is no need for such a small, localised thing to be added to the watchlist. This only affects FLC, and is already widely used in FAC and Military history A-Class reviews. I don't see it being contentious. Regards, Woody (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I would first make a test edit and determine whether cap templates, such as {{hidden}} [and related templates] and {{collapsetop}}/{{collapsebottom}}, have an effect on the load time of nomination pages, if they do, there may need to be a part 2 to this discussion because cap templates are a big part of reviews here at FLC.--TRUCO 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If there is no response/complaint by Friday, I say we trial this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we should trial it by then if no responses or comments are given. In the trial, we should test the templates to see if the load time is affected.--TRUCO 02:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we need to make sure all the same. I don't know if User:Gimmetrow had to write in extra script for the bot when FAC switched to pre-loaded templates. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The bot doesn't have anything to do with the toolbox. The toolbox still stays on the page after the FLC is archived. Gary King (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So everyone knows, this is what is preloaded onto the FAC page: :<small>''Nominator(s): ~~~''</small> <noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1={{subst:SUBPAGENAMEE}}}}</noinclude> ——Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabomb87 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Its not really that big an addition to the page, and plus that it isn't archived when Gimmebot archives the page. So I don't see why not to add it. But we should test like about 5 cap templates to see if the nom page is affected in any way.--TRUCO 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I completed a test in my sandbox here. The only problem I saw was that at first the cap templates ran over the toolbox, but on a second try it seems that we may need to add
in the coding after the "purpose" line the nominator writes in order to avoid that, unless anyone else knows of a specific coding that does the same thing.--TRUCO 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello? =D--TRUCO 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems to work, let's do it! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never really found it to be that beneficial, but if consensus is in favour of the pre-load template, then I'm fine with that. -- Scorpion0422 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
My hope is that with the toolbox added, people will actually use the tools on the FLC page. What is happening right now is that someone (that someone is usually me) has to go down the FLC page and check the dabs of all the articles at one go because there is no easy access to the dab tool. Dead links, not so much since there is a link at the top of the FLC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thats exactly why we should implement it.--TRUCO 503 02:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this, actually. Most people sign the nomination and don't write anything. If they do write anything, it's "I feel this meets the FL criteria." I don't think it's necessary. iMatthew // talk // 16:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not the purpose of it. The purpose of it is to implement the toolbox so nominators can check the dabs and deadlinks before reviewers have to tell them. The hell with what people write, its not important what they write. They can leave it blank if they want. What's important is the toolbox.--TRUCO 503 16:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Preload template implemented

Okay done, implemented. Gary King (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so this only affects noms that are nominated after this point right? So will we add that pre-load header that states the rules of FLC and how not use graphics like it is at FAC?--TRUCO 503 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It only affects future nominations. I haven't added that edit banner. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. In addition, have you made the necessary change so that cap templates go below the edit box, like it is in my sandbox above?--TRUCO 503 17:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the cap templates will still intersect with the toolbox. If the method you used is added, then even text will be pushed down below the toolbox. I don't think we should be forcing everything to appear below the toolbox. Perhaps one solution could be to use caps less, or to ask people to add {{clear}} before their caps, or add that to the cap template. Gary King (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess the first reviewer should do that well before he/she even starts the review.--TRUCO 503 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Truco, I am going to add the preload to one of your FLCs to see what the preload would look like. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure.--TRUCO 503 17:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we should add the {{clear}} template otherwise to the preload, the comments near the nominators reason and toolbox seems awkward IMO.--TRUCO 503 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I added {{clear}} to the preload, but reviewers (and nominators) have to know to not delete the substituted clear template. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It should be made aware on the edit banner that Gary said he was going to implement as well.--TRUCO 503 18:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know you guys wanted an edit banner. Anyways, I added it, which can be undone if people turn out not to want it. The text for the editintro is at Template:FLC/editintro. Gary King (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

← Also, adding {{clear}} to the preload is not the most elegant solution. Instead of using a div tag, using a table tag will solve the problem. Right now, people are using {{hidden}} right? Well, I created {{hidden/FLC}}, so just add /FLC to the template's name and voila, it won't intersect with the toolbox, but it should still retain the same functionality that {{hidden}} offers. Gary King (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but how about for the {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} templates?--TRUCO 503 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Those are already fine. They automatically clear the toolbox, so they will not overlap. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. Cool, I guess we're done all thanks to Gary!--TRUCO 503 21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Team records: "List of" or no?

Team record FLs are inconsistent in their usage of "List of" in the title. One baseball team records page uses it, but another doesn't. The nine FLs on soccer club records also have no uniform standard. Shouldn't these be made consistent, one way or the other? If so, which way is better? Giants2008 (17-14) 05:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the naming convention for lists, lists' titles should start out as "List of". I moved the Nashville Sounds list. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Australian George Cross recipients FLC

Resolved

Hi, I am the primary contributor and creator of List of Australian George Cross recipients, which has been nominated by another editor with out my consent for FLC. I do wish to eventually take the article to FLC, but this is premature as I was still seeking advice on the article and have it up for Milhist ACR. Would it be possible to remove the nomination completely? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You can untransclude the nomination and remove the FLC template for now, and when you are ready, add the FLC template back. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can have an administrator delete the FLC page for now and recreate it when you are ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Is that okay with everyone? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I will ask a Featured list director to take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I was just about to do the same thing. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- Scorpion0422 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, mate, I appreciate it. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that if any project rates a list as an article (start, B, C etc) instead of "List", the the article doesn't inform readers that it is up at FLC, even if other prjects rate it as list. As i think some projects don't use use list class, can this be fixed, so that a FLC is always noted on the page, whether or not all projects call it list class?Yobmod (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Do you use the gadget that shows the assessment of each article on the article page? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I was not the case in the past, but I cannot say for sure that something hasn't been altered and caused this. Do you have a specific example in mind? Note: Just incase the list you are referring to is List of Australian George Cross recipients, this may have been because the FLC was deleted by an admin, and purging your cache should fix this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

::My setting make it so that pages always tell me "This is a xxx class article". And if they are submitted for FL, it tells me that too. At Gaylactic spectrum award winners, the talk page has 2 banners - one is rated List and the other B. This caused the page to say "This is a B class article" (which is fine), but also did not display "currently a FLC". (I changed both to list and it worked fine - now changed back so others can see).

As my past lists have struggled to get enough reviews, this might become important, especially as i usually just give projects the page link, so anything that makes it easier/more difficult for people to place a review could have an effect.Yobmod (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, now it no longer does it - even when all banners are B, the featured list candidate msg remains. Just a temporary glitch then! Thanks anyway.Yobmod (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:PURGE should help you the next time this happens. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Preload toolbox

I've just noticed the text flows into the toolbox on this FLC. I don't know how to fix this at the moment. Can do it and then I can learn for the future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The text is kind of wrapping around the box like it should. At the moment, though, I'm not sure why it doesn't make a space between the text and the floating element. There should be a space between the two of about 1 pixel, but it seems more like -1 pixel right now. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This is probably since the preload toolbox was forced into the FLC manually versus automatically in nominations older than yesterday.--TRUCO 503 23:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The box on that page uses the same code from the template I believe, so it shouldn't be a difference. Gary King (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I fiddled around and managed to fix it by simply adding another blank line [3] Before it wrapped, but I was wondering if this is the standard fix (not just coincedence) and whether an extra line in the toolbox?/preload? template(s) might prevent this from happening in future. I am asking as I am not going to try and fiddle with something I don't know enough about. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that will fix it, but it's not a big deal as this fix is technically already implemented into the preload. In the preload, the nominator line is immediately after the section heading, which has the same effect as your edit. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok then, thanks for explaining. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let nominators and reviewers know that the temporary injunction by ArbCom against the use of this script applies only to "mass delinking". Nominators and reviewers are welcome to continue its use to satisfy Cr. 5 (compliance with the style guides). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 moving "List of awards and nominations received by Musician" lists

Has the naming convention for these types of lists changed? User:Otto4711 has renamed dozens of these lists. Gary King (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These moves should be undone. There was no discussion or consensus to move them. We specifically moved them to avoid ambiguities. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
If conciseness is the reason, that is not good enough, as precision and clarity of the title takes precedence. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I opened the discussion on the talk page of the category where I noted the issue. I have had productive discussions on category talk pages previously so there was no reason for me to believe that the category talk page was not an appropriate venue. I agree that consistency is important and the moves I made were done with the goal of creating consistency across first the musician category and then when I realized the wider scope across multiple categories. The moves, as noted, brought the articles into line with how the majority of such articles are currently named. Honestly, I've already put more time and energy into this than I care to. I've stated my case, let others state theirs. Whatever happens, apply the result consistently across the entire structure. Otto4711 (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • But for a move that affects many articles (especially this many Featured lists), you should at least have mentioned it here or at WP:MUSIC or somewhere else more visible. Anyway, Gary is moving the lists back and I suggest that nothing else changes until we get a final consensus. I will leave notes at several places. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that some of the lists only contain awards, so I name them "List of awards received by artist" without the "and nominations" because the awards are not indicated awards in the list. If the page is named "awards and nominations" and there is no indication which items in the list is an award and which is a nomination, then editors new to the page might not realize that they are all awards. Gary King (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the articles Otto4711 moved was one I created, List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie, and when I initially saw the move I simply shrugged. When I originally created the article, I named it List of David Bowie awards and nominations because I saw that most of these kinds of lists were named that way. When I took it to FLC, however, Gary King moved it to its current name. Again I just shrugged and thought, "whatever it takes to get through FLC" (I've done three now and it still unnerves me). But having read erachima's argument at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris, I have to agree that the List of awards [and nominations] received by Foo format is better. I would think that most people would know who David Bowie is, so there wouldn't be any ambiguity between either format for the title, but I (and probably quite a few others) haven't heard of Ludacris and, if it was List of Ludacris awards and nominations, I could see how someone unfamiliar could wonder if it was the name of the award or the name of nominee/recipient. If consistency is the name of the game, then I would suggest that List of awards [and nominations] received by Foo is less ambiguous and the List of Foo awards [and nominations] should be moved even though there may be a greater number. --JD554 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Already beat you to it, they have all been moved and standardized in Category:Lists of awards by musician. :) Gary King (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that I draw criticism for moving a number of these lists without supposedly having consensus, but you can moves over a hundred of them while in the midst of a discussion to try to attain consensus and that's apparently perfectly all right. Nothing like a good fait accompli to start off the morning I guess...oops, I've knocked over my playing cards, is there someone who can help me stack the deck? Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
An uninvolved perspective, since I'm sometimes around on FL pages but don't work with this type of list, and I also see a lot of Otto's good work in another jurisdiction. (1) I think that Otto acted appropriately in trying to start a discussion first. The category talk-page was a natural point to start, but it's a shame that it wasn't advertised elsewhere. I don't think he can't be blamed for not thinking of alerting this talk-page in particular, though. (2) "bold, revert, discuss" applies in any event, surely - in fact, Otto tried it with an extra "discuss" first. (3) I'm unimpressed with Gary King deciding to move everything (including previously unmoved pages) during the "D" phase of the BRD cycle. There was no pressing need to act and no harm would have occurred had the situation had been left to await further development. No wonder Otto feels that he's been presented with a fait accompli. (4) All that apart, I think the "...received by..." format is the more accurate formula, and I have seen the trend towards that style develop in discussions on FL nominations over a period of time. So, the right result has been reached, even if the process was not ideal. BencherliteTalk 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I moved the articles based on consensus that we reached before, not this discussion. I had moved a few of those lists months earlier, but didn't go through all of them. Gary King (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You moved the articles after ignoring the request in this discussion that wholesale changes not be made until this discussion concluded. You decided the result you wanted and moved hundreds of pages to support that result. Is that how consensus works these days? Why is this discussion even continuing now that Gary has pre-determined the results? Otto4711 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it's continuing. Do you agree with or disagree with the List of awards and nominations received by Foo format? Because if you do disagree, you don't appear to have attempted to counter any of the arguments put forward in favour of it. --JD554 (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To Otto's defense, he provided a rationale of those moves above (starts "I see no consensus..."). However, I don't see a sign that anybody else supports that rationale. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh I know he did. However, a number of arguments in favour of "received by" format have been made since. --JD554 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The same arguments have been made several times by different people, you mean, and I answered them before they were made. Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You started a discussion on a category talk page that likely not a lot of people have on watch and then claim nobody objects. You should have gone to WP:MUSIC, which is where this discussion belongs. -- Scorpion0422 19:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't just affect music related articles though, there are all the sub-categories under Category:Lists of awards by award winner. So I guess this is the best place for a centralised discussion and I see that a notification has already been placed on the talk page for WP:MUSIC, I've also add notifications at WT:ACTOR and WT:TV. --JD554 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I started the discussion where I found the problem and I'm getting pretty good and goddamn tired of being slammed for it when I did nothing wrong. And I did not "claim" that no one objected. I stated the simple fact that no one objected and I do not appreciate your attempt to call my actions into question when, again, I did nothing wrong. Otto4711 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I actually brought this up back in August at WT:MUSICIAN, I found it very peculiar for the list to be called "List of Foo awards" rather than "List of awards won by Foo". The former sounds like the awards themselves are named Foo. I.e. the "Foo Award for Excellence" or whatever. =) –xeno (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Potentially confusing names should be disambiguated anyway. No one is going to look at the vast majority of "List of Foo awards" and think that Foo is the one bestowing the awards. Awards that are named for someone or something are named as "List of Foo Awards winners/recipients". Otto4711 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_9&oldid=1190125649"