Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

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.

FLC

• Promoted
  • List of Millennium characters (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (SchroCat)
  • List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (SchroCat)
  • List of awards and nominations received by American Horror Story (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (SchroCat)
  • List of Square Enix video game franchises (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (Giants)
  • Agatha Christie bibliography (FLC) – This FLC had one oppose over an infobox that summarized the contents of the article. Since many FLs in multiple fields use infoboxes like this one and no other users objected to the infobox here, I see the consensus as being for promotion despite the opposition. If the opposer feels strongly about the issue, I suggest opening a discussion at FLC talk to bring it wider attention. (Giants)

• Unsuccessful
  • List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. Chinnaswamy Stadium (FLC) – No consensus for promotion. (PresN)
  • List of knights and dames of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Edward VIII (FLC) – No consensus for promotion. (PresN)

• 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!

---

FLRC

• Kept
  • List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men (FLRC) – Withdrawn by nominator after work was done to bring the list to modern FL standards. (Giants)

• Delisted
  • None

• 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.

Subsection headings: STOP!

Per the instructions at the top of the FLC page, Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). I've noticed that a number of contributors now add section headings into reviews, let's make a decision, either stop doing it, or remove the instruction from the FLC instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I agree, we should stick to the guideline, and not do it. Harrias ^talk 16:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I say don't do it; it's not really necessary, and people tend to do it wrong anyways (they put one that's too high-level so it spills out onto the FLC page) --PresN 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
• I think that people are confused because the FAC instructions now suggest that subsections be created for long reviews there. This style is not my favorite thing to see and I prefer older formatting methods. However, we should be careful how we handle this because we are low on reviewers as it is. Let's be polite when telling them that their preferences go against our guidelines. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick review request from an experienced Wikipedian

Would it be possible if anyone could quickly look over this article and let me know if it is ready to be nominated? It has been a pet project of mine for years, but I would like to finally finish nominating it and would like to see if anyone has a pointer or two before I do so. If this is not the place and I should nominate it to get advice from there, let me know, and I will go right ahead and do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If no one else answers here, I'd say you have as good a chance as anyone else nominating. One thing, is that while you have scope="col", you don't have scope="row" on the first table. Defunct institutions has neither. My experience on FLC is limited, but my observation is that if the list is in fairly decent shape, FLC is more of a fine-tuning process. Also it's not necessarily a quick process, taking weeks or months. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Maile is right about the row scopes being needed, and I'd also have a look at using more descriptive alt text ("a building" conveys little; "a red-brick building", "a chapel with a spire", etc are not much longer but mean something). I'm also not sure why you've used one note for two columns, and a different but almost identical one for a third (notes 1 and 2), when all three could share the same one. If I'm not mistaken, @Ruby2010: has contributed a few lists of similar subject matter before; if you haven't already, have a look at hers and see if there's anything you think you're "missing" or could learn from. GRAPPLE ^X 14:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to lose the (Fall 2013) label, per WP:SEASON. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple important pieces of advice that I can offer. The first is to review the previous FLCs for this list and see if the reviewers' comments have been addressed. For example, I quickly looked at PresN's review from the last FLC and saw a couple of items he brought up that were not fixed; there may be more that I didn't check. Secondly, the merger proposal at the top of the page should be resolved before this is brought to FLC. If left unaddressed, it might lead to questions about whether the article is stable. Once you've had a chance to act on the comments here and in the prior FLCs, I hope that you do end up bringing it back here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Improving accessibility of strikeout

Some screen readers do not announce struck out text. I suggest the following instruction for this page:

"To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it."

Be reworded to say:

"To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it; please add "Objection struck out" (or whatever was struck out) following your signature, plus ~~~~ to sign the new comment."

Thisisnotatest (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit wordy, and it's hard enough to police people's informal comments without being over-specific. I'd prefer "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it, and leave a comment about the change." --PresN 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd accept that. It's an improvement over now. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly savvy with screenreaders but I'd be happy to work on a subst-able template which could drop a marker beside stricken comments to denote them easily; @Thisisnotatest:, would a screen-reader pick up on text hidden in comment tags (<!-- these things -->)? GRAPPLE ^X 09:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, I don't know. @RexxS:? @Graham87:? Thisisnotatest (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it would not. Graham87 04:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request on image criteria

This came up in a recent review, and the FL criteria is not specific to this. I asked an editor to include captions and alt text for each individual image in a table. The editor responded with "Pictures in tables do not need captions" but was good enough to do the captions anyway. For future reviews, do pictures within tables need to have the captions and alt text? — Maile (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say that they definitely still needs ALT text, as that is an accessibility must. But WP:CAPTION suggests that a caption is not needed "where the purpose of the image is clearly nominative, that is, that the picture serves as the typical example of the subject of the article and offers no further information" which I would say is generally the case in a table, as normally the image is being used as an obvious illustration of the subject. Harrias ^talk 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Tributaries of Shamokin Creek

Would anyone mind giving this FLC a review? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINKING for sortable tables

This is with respect to linking columns in a sortable table. In one of my FLCs, @The Rambling Man: suggested that for a sortable table, all linked items in a column should be linked every time. However, in my current FLC, @FrB.TG: pointed that it could be a possible case for WP:OVERLINKING as the policy suggests the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions should not be linked. I would appreciate if the experts can clarify the MOS for sortable tables. Examples at WP:WHENTABLE shows that all the entries are linked. Just wanted to make sure that I am following the correct pattern. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

These are two separate points as far as I can see. Firstly FrB.TG is right to say that major features etc should not be linked (just as they should not be for any list or article). The second point—where TRM is correct—is that when a term should be linked in a sortable table, the link should be repeated in the following cells as the order changes on the sort. Hope this helps. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

In first list, language is linked multiple times which also falls under major features and in current list, its state. So should I keep only first occurrence linked? - Vivvt (Talk) 09:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My experience has been if you use Template:Sort on something like names (last, first), and use that template everytime the name appears in the sortable column, then linking only the first time does not affect the sort. It's the individual template that affects the sort. But you would have to use the template in every instance where the name appears in the sort column.— Maile (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat and Maile66: Thanks for your inputs. I will make the changes to both the lists accordingly. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To sort names, use the {{sortname}} template, not the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your seasoned advice I must say this is subject to editorial perspective. When I first starting using sort templates, sortname was what I used when making tables, so I don't disagree you on that. I believe you are correct. However, on more than one occasion in lengthy tables, other editors came along and switched everything to the plain sort template. As I recall, at least one was an admin. At Wikipedia, it's "damned if you do, and damned if you don't." — Maile (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Referencing and Splitting of excessively long lists

I want to make a complete song list of Indian singer Shreya Ghoshal. But the problem is that she has sung nearly 2500 songs in about 16 languages. I know that if I want to make it a featured one, it will need well referencing. But, aren't 2500 references too much for a single article? It goes without saying that the article needs splitting. But there's still a confusion regarding the pattern of splitting. Need advice ASAP. (Note: I don't think language-wise splitting is an effective idea since the Hindi song list will itself contain nearly 1000 songs). The Soul of the Green Arrow 10:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)