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.

Links in sortable lists[edit]

Are there any guidelines on repeating links in sortable lists? This has come up in the FLC review for List of public art in the City of Westminster where, for instance, Edwin Lutyens's name is linked in for his first appearance on the list, as the designer of the Civil Service Rifles War Memorial, but not for other works of his like the Cenotaph in Whitehall, which is hundreds of items later. It's therefore necessary to do a Ctrl+F in order to find the wikilink much of the time. In cases like this should the name be linked every time, or once per section, or should the status quo continue? Ham II (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've always understood that links should be repeated every time in a sortable table, because the 'first' occasion might change. Harrias talk 20:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I believe you gave me some advice on this point a little while ago. Tim riley talk 13:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Harrias has given the right advice here: as the first occurrence changes with the re-sorting of the column, the links should be repeated. (Which also avoids the inconsistency of only having three or four links repeated if you work out what would be first with each individual sort). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteering to review[edit]

I have not long to go on my long-term project (The Boat Race annual articles, all 161 of them) so I have more time to dedicate to reviewing. If anyone would like me to review a list, please let me know on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. (P.S. By all means reciprocate by reviewing one of the 13 Boat Race articles currently at WP:GAN!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do some for free. Wow, standards, people, standards!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Additional FL delegate proposal[edit]

Resounding consensus to instate PresN as a delegate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At the 2013 FLC elections two editors—Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and SchroCat (talk · contribs)—were appointed to become FL delegates. They joined the FL director Giants2008 (talk · contribs), and two editors Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and NapHit (talk · contribs), albeit with the long-term unavailability of NapHit. Since then, Hahc21 has also ceased to act as a delegate, and those overseeing FLs—their promotion, delisting, and appearance on the front page—have been reduced to three. It is now time to consider adding another delegate to bring the number back to four.

In the 2013 election the third placed candidate, with ten supporting votes and no opposes was PresN (talk · contribs), and it is proposed that PresN is promoted to the role of FL delegate.

Timescale: All comments are invited on this proposal, which will run until 23:59, 26 April 2015, UTC. – SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreement: If this RfC passes, I am willing to work as an FLC delegate. --PresN 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: 26 October 2015, really? That appears to take red tape to a whole new level. What is the rational behind such a long timescale? Harrias talk 10:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Cock up on my part, I'm afraid! It's now back to 26 April - a ten-day window. - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank heavens. I'd have changed my mind ten times before October!! Harrias talk 11:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions Not much to say here, I think PresN (talk · contribs) is a pretty solid candidate, although I would have three questions:
  1. Can you confirm you are still interested in becoming a delegate?
  2. In the previous election, you were asked what three things you would change; one of your points was "that nominations take so long to get finished ... due to lack of reviewers of course". I think that this is even more of a problem now than it was then. Do you have any further ideas of how we can start to address this problem?
  3. Looking at my own FLCs lately, they suffer from not getting quality reviews, to be honest, they have passed more easily than they should have; are you still in favour of delegates being able to take a more active role in reviewing articles? Harrias talk 11:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Answers
  1. I am still interested in becoming a delegate; SchroCat and Crisco 1492 verified that with me before posting.
  2. I haven't come up with a proposal beyond what I had in that election- some sort of talk-page notification to people when their FLCs pass, or when they are near the bottom of the queue without enough reviews, letting them know that there are x many FLCs that need reviews and that if they review people are likely to review back. I've also tried doing the proactive review notices- reviewing someone else's FLC, and leaving a note that they might review mine back; I've gotten a 50% success rate with that, but more importantly, I've seen a few other reviewers start to do that as well. I do feel like reminders and mild guilt trips are much more successful than a firm QPQ system, which I think leads to shoddy checkbox reviews.
  3. Connecting this question to the last, one of the reasons that SchroCat and Crisco asked me to be a delegate is that there are times that they get in and review something, only to have to keep the other one out of it so that they don't run out of promoters. Simply having extra delegates frees up the others to be able to do more reviews without trapping themselves. So, yes, I guess, is that answer to your question. --PresN 15:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, I haven't responded to your comments yet because I don't want to do it unless I have the time to also look back at your nomination! --PresN 15:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow this has gotten very few responses. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (plus the directors/delegates always know they can call on me if any assistance is required...) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Yup. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I don't think I've enountered PresN, but from long experience I have complete confidence in the judgment of both Crisco and SchroCat, and am very happy to support this proposal. Tim riley talk 13:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I believe he'll do a good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that PresN will be an asset. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Although not familiar with you, I took the opportunity to go through your contributions and you appear to be more than capable of carrying out FLC duties.. CassiantoTalk 18:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – I completely trust you Vensatry (ping) 06:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - As my inactivity as a delegate precluded me from helping out, I fully support the nomination. PresN is a great editor and will be a credit to the system. NapHit (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The same wikilink in a row of a sortable table[edit]

I was intending to nominate List of scheduled monuments in Mendip here soon (the final of seven lists of Scheduled monuments in Somerset), however an issue has been raised on the talk page on which I'd appreciate some advice. It has been pointed out that this list, in common with the previous six (and I believe some other lists), has the same wikilink on the same row in both type and notes columns (eg Earthworks, Round barrow or Bowl barrow). I am trying to keep the format as similar as possible between all the lists for consistency so I don't want to remove them and then have to put them back during the review. Should I remove them from this list (and the other six!) before nominating?— Rod talk 19:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now removed the duplicate "type" wikilinks where they were repeated in the description, so please ignore the question above, unless some further discussion would be useful for other list nominations.— Rod talk 11:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad supports[edit]

Okay, as promised here, I just want to make a quick mention that standards here seem to be lower than I can ever recall. Many candidates receive a support vote without the voter making any comparison with our criteria. It seems evident that a few editors are helping each other out without upholding our standards. I will do my best to ensure these lists have extra scrutiny. In the meantime I hope the rest of the community can help out too and review some of these candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm highly offended that you are accusing me and others of "helping each other out." I'd really like to see your evidence of this (as it is clearly speculation on your part) in order to eradicate your use of WP:BADFAITH.  — ₳aron 21:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
You can be as offended as you like, it's not relevant. The quality of the review of the list I linked is key, so many supports for such a poor list. Thankfully it's improved sufficiently because other reviewers have applied the criteria to it. It's nothing to do with bad faith, more to do with lack of competence for some reviewers who supported a list which was abundantly below the standards we seek to be "Wikipedia's finest". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you see that's where you're wrong. It's completely relevant, because you're accusing me and others of doing something without any kind of evidence what-so-ever. Please give me the evidence, such as me asking editors to support, and then you may have a valid case. That is a very dangerous game to play. Furthermore, your edit summary is another example of your not assuming good faith.  — ₳aron 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No you're right, I don't assume good faith when many lists here have "support" from the get-go yet six weeks later there are massive issues with them. Either the reviewers lack the ability to review lists or something else is going on. I will make sure that every single list of this nature is reviewed properly from now on. Like the Ariana Grande list, if people were happy to support back in late-March, we have a massive problem with our process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That's not evidence of "helping each other out". I didn't ask anyone to comment or support. They came of their own accord, commented, and voted. So I'm yet to see a valid case put forward by yourself of this "helping each other out" accusation.  — ₳aron 21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't recall suggesting you asked for it. But the shockingly low standards of some reviewers here needs closer examination, particularly when they themselves nominate lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've said in each reply here to you... but whatever. You're clearly choosing to ignore because you can't supply it.  — ₳aron 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I've already provided one example of a list review where supports where given to a way substandard list. That you benefitted from it is another matter. Enough is enough, time to start setting the standard back up a notch or three. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999, @The Rambling Man: Speaking only for myself as a (new) FLC delegate, when I see several supports with little comment besides "great job" followed by one or more lengthy reviews (opposing or not), I'm not inclined to ascribe much weight to the supports. It does give the impression that the reviewers did not review closely. I'm not going to go so far as to accuse anyone of a formal support trading system or anything; while it certainly can give off that impression it's more likely to me that the other supporters don't realize that they aren't helping out. I would instead ask that you remind other editors at the music wikiproject that bare supports on a list that others easily find (fixable!) issues with aren't really helpful; they need to review the list more deeply. WP:VG used to have a similar problem at FAC- no one would be asking for easy supports, but other editors didn't realize that they weren't actually being helpful by giving a cheap review. It's easy to fix, and not the end of the world. The Rambling Man is heavily invested in the FLC process; he's just trying to point out a problem, not attack you (Aaron) directly. --PresN 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. The last thing our process needs is a QPQ system (especially an "unwritten" one), much like DYK, where oftentimes crap can pass to the main page. I'm trying hard to uphold the standards we've worked for years to maintain. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Competent reviewers seem to be put off song and discography lists in a process similar to adverse selection, whereby bad reviewers are drawn because good reviewers, due to a dislike of the topic or the editors involved, avoid the topic and don't invest their time. I don't know a solution, but that's the problem. Seattle (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well there's certainly a core of FLC contributors who assist one another with their female singer lists right now. I am dedicated to making sure all the early supports aren't just accepted at face value. A part of the solution is to make sure you (Seattle) and others, if they have the time and energy, review these lists objectively. In the past few weeks I've found countless issues with lists that have overwhelming support from the in-group. To help the FL directors and delegates, we need to keep making our reviews and opinions as open and thorough and loud as possible to prevent these easy passes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with TRM. Sometime back, in one of the nominations, a reviewer had offered their support without even knowing that it was an FLC. Of late, a new breed of reviewers (who don't even have an idea about our criteria) have increased participation over the process. I see some not-so-good lists getting overwhelming supports with in a few days after nomination. Extra scrutiny, in some form, is badly needed here. Vensatry (ping) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. I had some time on my hands so I just checked out the most likely to be promoted FLC, namely List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011. It was nominated by User:HĐ on 6 May and was supported without any kind of comment six hours later by a user with over 12,000 edits. Next, eleven minutes later, we saw a support from User:Listmeister who could only find the fact it was a 2011 list an issue. Worst of all, less than six hours after that, i.e. less than twelve hours after the nomination listed, we had an administrator, User:Carioca, who has been editing longer than me, giving an unqualified support to the list. Since then, we see critical reviews from User:Cowlibob and User:A Thousand Doors, neither of whom are happy with this situation. Then I reviewed the list. Sub-standard doesn't quite cover it. About time we started to disqualify these supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I am not trying "to help anyone out" here. It was my first time voting regarding this and I might have been a bit too quick in giving my support without having a thorough understanding of the process. But it was not in any "bad faith". I primarily only paid attention to the rankings have been well-sourced. I will carefully review the whole process next time if I ever do it again. Thank you very much.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: since so many of these nomination issues seem to involve music-related lists, I've left (what I hope is) a reasonable statement of the issue and request that reviewers look a little more in depth before supporting at WT:ALBUM, WT:SONGS, and WT:WPMU. Turns out WP:MUSIC is the shorthand for the notability guidelines, and not the parent music project for some reason? --PresN 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobel laureates of India[edit]

Can I demand a bit more reviews and comments of this FLC? Thanks..-The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't demand it, request or ask for it perhaps. But it's on my list. I'll see what I can do later tonight. Finally, what is Benison? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)