Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates
|Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning.
Thank you for your cooperation.
|Threads older than 10 days may be archived by.|
I think these lists need to be closed:
- Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Stanford University people/archive1
- Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kajol filmography/archive1
- Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Abhishek Bachchan filmography/archive1
- Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/77th Academy Awards/archive1 (Maybe this one too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:464C:C401:0:318E:F913:42D:7EFA (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
You may like to know that a discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article on whether to remove the "..." at the end of (Full article...) in TFA blurbs. (Logic would suggest that any changes to TFA practice on this point ought to be matched at TFL for consistency of main-page presentation.) Please discuss there, not here, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Links in sortable lists
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)
I think I am way above 5 noms in the last 1-2 years that received unnecessary amount of reviewers. Do things still pass because most the reviewers still here pretty much check only the same type of list (i.e. the 100th cricket/baseball/awards list)? I would have guessed that at some point reviewers would take a stab at some not-again-the-same-thing lists. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)