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.

  • 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.

In other news
  • Nominators, please feel free to nudge folks who have commented on your nominations to get them to return for a second look. Reviewers, please try to remember to return to lists you've commented on!!!!
  • If you nominate your own list, please consider reviewing at least one other...
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Portal:Featured lists/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer.

Community consensus regarding article titles[edit]

At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Arshad Warsi, roles and awards/archive1, one reviewer has opposed for lack of consensus regarding titles. I was asked to change the title of the list and so I moved it to List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi. Now the reviewer opines that other editors would object to this title. What can I do here? I can't create consensus on my own. I hope someone would respond. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The entire titling issue a hurricane in a thimble. Personally, I wouldn't consider objections over the title "because there is no community consensus" to be actionable. The MOS doesn't standardize list titles, so we have many different titles that we've accepted in the past. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I am the editor to which Skr15081997 is referring. As I've stated during the FL nomination, I really don't feel that we should be promoting anymore articles of this type until we have some consensus over the article title (which, lest we forget, does form part of the WP:FLC). "[Name], roles and awards" titles are still extremely contentious. We currently have three FLs of this type, and the title format has been brought up at the nomination page for every single one of them. Many other editors have also raised objections to the titles (see, for example, the ones that I list here). Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards has had somewhere in the region of eighteen thousand words of debate on this one subject, and that's to say nothing about the discussion over at Category talk:Filmographies. Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards was actually promoted under the title Roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut, before being moved four minutes later to its current title, for no reason that I can see other than the editor's personal preference. So I guess that's another problem that I have with these articles: lack of stability (also a featured list criterion).
If whichever featured list delegate who chooses to close the nomination feels that my objections are not worth considering, that's his/her decision. I have made my opinions clear, and I stand by them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • By way of reminder there was an extensive discussion over one of the article titles which was closed with no consensus to change. The fact that you didn't like the outcome is painfully obvious, but that's life. Time to move on as this is unconstructive now. Dragging the question up every time someone rightly uses the title in good faith, they are harassed in the FLC by a threat of an oppose !vote that they feel forced to change it: this is not good. The consensus from that discussion was against you and your lack of respect for that, based on nothing by your own personal preference does you no credit at all. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Current title, "List of... " seems far more appropriate than the original which was awkward and non-standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes[edit]

Just done a fair bit of work on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, but I'm a bit stumped as to whether it qualifies more as a list or an article. Any thoughts on whether it would be more appropriate here at FLC, or over at GA/FA? Harrias talk 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • LOL - I was possibly going to say article (with reservations)! It's one of those that is borderline and would happily sit in both camps, I think. Ian Rose, from an FAC perspective, would you have this down as list or article? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My personal expectation for a literary work (i.e. a short story collection) would be FAC. But it's missing critical reception (contemporary reviews). That will certainly be an issue at FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I do like a consensus! My first thought was GA/FAC, but the main issue I came across was the fact that as each story was individually released first a lot of the information seems more relevant in the article for the story than in here: for example, there is very little critical reception on the collection, but plenty on each individual story. I could add in such a section and expand this into more of an article, but I don't want to go too in depth on each story, given they all have their own articles. Harrias talk 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's one way of doing it: do we have any FAs on collections/anthologies? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • With possibly the most laughable GA review I've ever seen – not that I'm questioning its worthiness! Harrias talk 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree - and I wasn't over happy with it in the first place! Still, give it a year or so and I'll get round to upgrading it to an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... still feels like a tough pickle to me. I'm leaning FL now, since most of the stories have their own articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Ugh, I can't make up my mind. I've seen FLs with that much intro text, and I've seen articles with a table that big too. My vote is that it's your call- I'd be willing to promote it if it passed at FLC, but I'd also be fine with it at FAC (though I would want to see a reception section in order to actually support, so given your above comments it may just be in your best interest to go for FLC on that alone.) --PresN 17:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tks Schro for the ping. Yes, not easy -- I'm persuaded most by the point highlighted by Chris and Pres, and suggest that in its current form it might be best at FLC but add a reception section to round it out and you'd have a fair nom for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've decided to approach this from a slightly different angle. I've added in a "critical reception" section (though I've only included more generic reviews, rather than of specific stories), and opened a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/archive1). I'd invite any or all of you to have a look, and hopefully the review can help to shape the article further, and it might become clearer which route it should head along. Harrias talk 06:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I think this is one of the most borderline FAC/FLC cases I can remember. I'd lean toward this being a regular article now that a reception section has been added, but I honestly wouldn't object if this was nominated at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Humbly request more reviews[edit]

Hello. I put Shinhwa discography up for FL review quite some time ago, and only one person has made any comments. From reading older entries here, I see that discographies are somewhat hated here, but I improved the article in good faith and as what I'd hoped would be a way for me to introduce myself to the world of Good- and Featured-level article editing. Maybe it's really horrible, but I'd at least like feedback. This is my first time attempting anything like this, and I had very little against which to compare the subject matter regarding format and lead (there is only one other FL in Korean music, and it has many, many shortcomings). Please don't feel you must avoid it because you don't know Korean; if people unfamiliar with the material can't understand the article then I need to know that so I can improve it further. Thank your time. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Delegates note that User:Imzadi1979 is arguing for argument's sake at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of census-designated places in West Virginia/archive1– with serious ownership issues by Imzadi1979 there as well. Seattle (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal to permit redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)