Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The closure log
edit · history · watch · refresh

Comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs), Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), SchroCat (talk · contribs) and PresN (talk · contribs), and other notes of pertinence. Should you wish to contact the delegates, you can use the {{@FLC}} ping facility.

  • FLCs of special note
    • We now have many lists in need of more attention. See here for the oldest ones. Please do what you can to contribute to these nominations!

  • FLRCs of special note
    • None.
For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Portal:Featured lists/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer. To send a message to the FLC director and the FLC delegates, use the {{@FLC}} template.

Quid pro quo[edit]

Is there anything wrong with asking users to consider reviewing your nomination after you review theirs? I believe that it keeps nominations from going to trash, but it has remained controversial among some editors. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this method is the risk that users might agree to give each other soft reviews in exchange for supports. QPQ reviewing has caused a lot of problems at DYK, and I don't want to see similar issues creep into FLC. If there's a trusted editor you want a review from, you're better off leaving a neutrally worded message on their talk page. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course I was referring to a neutral review and not support exchange. Anyway, I do not obligate them to review my nominations, just something I ask them to consider. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Calling all sysops[edit]

The nominator of this FLC has requested withdrawal, since it is his second nom in a short period of time. As part of the withdrawal process, we need to have the FLC page deleted. Unfortunately, I lack the bit and cannot do this myself; SchroCat is in the same boat. Would a passing admin mind deleting the page so one of the FLC closers can withdraw the candidacy properly? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? You two aren't? Huh. I'm an admin, for future reference, if we need one in the future. --PresN 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
As is Chris, FYI. --PresN 03:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Not that I would want the bit, but I'd be blackballed in minutes if I tried - and rightly so: I wouldn't vote for me either!) I'm surprised Giants isn't: he is good enough to be. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Right. I can delete pages as needed. (Sorry for my lack of comments on nominations; between my doctorate program and a new baby, my plate's been full). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion You All May Be Interested In[edit]

Hi all, I have started a discussion here regarding fork lists of the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees list. Discussion regarding this topic occurred here a few years ago at WP:FLC here and is relevant to the failed nomination of List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (FLC discussion here). Since this discussion is relevant to multiple FLCs and editors here are familiar with list guidelines, I thought it best to inform FLC. Any input you may provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


With the promotion of List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars, there are now 3,000 Featured Lists! --PresN 16:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well done project, and well done to those who keep it ticking over. I'm still thrilled whenever I see an FL on the main page, now twice a week. It's a mile away from where FL was when I first started participating, and it's doing Wikipedia proud. Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Organization Proposal for FLC Page[edit]

Having been back for a few months and observing the FLC page, I think a small organizational change could help us assess where we are when it comes to the number of nominations. Right now we have the following structure in the TOC:

1 Nominations

2 Older nominations

Nominations are considered "Older" after 20 days. This was probably done when nominations didn't take nearly as long, so any nomination over 20 days was seen as a high priority. Considering many nominations do not get any comment within 20 days (I just reviewed one that went 6 weeks without one single review), it seems somewhat unhelpful at this point. I propose organizing it the following way:

1 New Nominations

2 Nominations older than 2 weeks

3 Nominations older than 4 weeks

4 Nominations older than 6 weeks

This way when people look at the main page, we can tell quickly how many truly "old" nominations there are, and possibly help focus reviews where they are most needed. It appears the current organizing of nominations is performed by User:FACBot, so I imagine for any change @Hawkeye7 would need to be on-board in order to code it correctly (which I imagine this change wouldn't create any technical issues). @WP:FLC director and delegates: and regular FL reviewers, would this be something you would support? Thanks for any input, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure this would bring many advantages to the process. Reviewers know the list is chronological and the majority of users select a list to review not by whether it's in week 3 or week 4, but either a. because it's a subject in which they have an interest, or b. because it's an older nomination—which they know because it's either toward the bottom of the list or on the backlog list at the top of the page. There is nothing that would make me strongly oppose its introduction, but I just don't see the need; I'd be interested to hear what others have to say and if they would find it would change their modus operandi. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • An alternative would be to move the 20 day "older nominations" marker to a later date, a month, maybe, six weeks, to ensure that the ones we're classing as older (and which are their to focus reviewers as to what we need to focus on, are actually the older ones. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I made a test edit to see what it would look like. Here is the example. @SchroCat, to your last comment I think my main issue is that the 20 days isn't very relevant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I know 20 days is not relevant any more, which is why I suggested making the "older nominations" marker record at a month or six weeks. I saw the test edit, and I am still unconvinced by any advantages it may bring. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't find the 2/4/6 weeks lines very compelling - besides taxonomy, they don't give much useful information to reviewers or nominators. I agree with Schrocat, though, that 20 days isn't a useful line either. I'd personally move it to 6 weeks- given that we have an informal time limit of 2 months to prove that a nomination is viable in that round, it would be a more useful "hey, nominations below this line are about to be removed if they don't get some real reviews really soon". --PresN 14:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No problem. I would be happy with the change of 20 days to something longer! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, 20 days is the number used by FAC. If we think it doesn't work well for us, we could try changing the definition of "older" to one month and see how it works, leaving open the option of moving it to six weeks if necessary. If we had four categories, I fear that editors would just review lists from the oldest category to the exclusion of everything else. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Hawkeye7, per the above, could you get the bot to peg the "older nominations" split at four weeks? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sri Lankan power stations[edit]

Giants2008, Both PresN and I have supported the List of power stations in Sri Lanka nomination and Chris was involved in part of it, so this one will have to be a close from you, when you feel the time is right. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)