Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Tables with opinions

I've been adding tables to some, eventually all, of the nominations. I'm thinking it will help a. people get an idea of the discussion at a glance and b. focus reviewers on lists that have had fewer reviews. If people don't like it, this can obviously be halted. Geraldk 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that. It's very helpful. You need to make a template for that.--Crzycheetah 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's definately useful, particulaly when there are lot of comments and people changing their vote. Good move. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I already passed it along to WP:FAC. They are watching us in fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
However, it reduces the discussion into a 'with us' or 'against us' scenario. --maclean 02:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
That's one reason why they were switched from saying "vote" to "opinion". I don't really think they'll set up an adversarial debate process any more than the current process does. It's just a summary of current information, after all. Either way, we get people thinking it's decided by a vote rather than by consensus. Geraldk 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm opposed to these tables. FLC is about discussion and consensus and not who gets the most support votes. And it would drive the nominator to ignore any comment or remark about the list as long as it gets enough support to pass. CG 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
How is the latter not true of the current system? The only difference is that the opinions expressed are summarized in an easily readable format. My big concern right now is that we aren't getting enough comments to promote a lot of deserving lists, and part of that is that it's hard for reviewers to tell which have a lot of comments and which have a few. Geraldk 12:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, FLC is more a vote than more other discussion areas, so for this case I don't see a problem. I mean the numbers are pretty cut and dry, and of course the nominators would still ahve to respond to the comments and opposers. Wizardman 16:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that opinion really worries me, Wizardman. It worries me more that you sometimes close nominations. If you do believe this is a vote, then I strongly advise you to stop closing nominations. Colin°Talk 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Granted, I haven't closed a nom in months, and I don't mean that it's of course a 100% vote; if it was then there wouldn't be the current problems being cited. Plus, I say it's more a vote solely because this is the only area where there are arbitrary numbers in place for promotion. Not saying whether o not I agree, just pointing it out. Wizardman 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Colin's thoughts

I've been researching the closing status of the FLs to gauge the level of support/oppose that FL noms get. It is very rare for an FL to be promoted with any outstanding oppose. This is quite different to FA. However, the level of participation here is so low that many lists only just get enough support to pass the threshold. Generally, if an oppose is lodged, the list will also fail to attract much support. Recent failures are 3:2, 8:4, 1:2, 0:1, 3:2, 0:1, 1:0, 4:1, 3:0, 2:0, 1:4, 0:2. This year, I can find only three noms that got promoted while they had an outstanding oppose:

Now, I don't think those promotions were so wrong that they need reviewed. Closing comments would have helped. Why after 20/32 days was the outstanding oppose not dealt with and yet was disregarded? There have been suggestions in the past that we somehow highlight noms that have gone into extra time. Perhaps we should reconsider this, along with a statement to say why this nom needs more comments. For example:

  • Will fail due to lack of support.
  • Objection disputed by nominator. (i.e. other reviewers are required in order to gauge consensus as to whether it is a valid objection).
  • Objecting being worked on; please keep watching.

I've been reading m:Polls are evil and think is relevant both to these summary tables and our thoughts on handling FLC in general. Lets take each of the subheadings:

Polling discourages consensus
Sometimes reviewers raise objections that they later retract or agree could have been dealt with in a different way from how they suggested. This is why it is so important to get other reviewers on an nom that has an object. Sadly, that often doesn't happen. Lack of interaction between reviewers' comments weakens the process. We end up with a list of "Support. Brilliant" along side an object. Does the object have consensus?
Polling encourages false dichotomy
Support and oppose are not the only two options. Often a reviewer will see a list that is nearly-there but requires just a few more changes. If small, this could be handled by a conditional support. Often, at an early stage in the nomination, reviewers might just comment, making it clear what needs to be done to get their support. This can be seen as less confrontational than an up-front oppose.
Polling encourages groupthink
This is probably the worst aspect of these summary tables. It is really hard not to be influenced by the current "voting" state. This can influence not only your own recommendation but also your decision to abstain from a nomination. That could be quite unfair if you read the nom and (a) the support is all fan-based or (b) the objects are unfair.
Polling isn't fair, either
Perhaps we've got into the habit of thinking you need 4 support and 0 oppose? The concern that fans can bring about an undeserved promotion is present at FA and FL. I think significant contributors should abstain from supporting (though they may comment or even oppose). I'd be uncomfortable promoting a 4-sup list where two of those were main contributors.
Polls are misleading and encourage confusion
I've seen lists that have received lots of good advice on FLC only to have the nominator go off in a huff because they failed. Worse, if it appears they "won the vote". Sometimes, FLC is a place where editors can learn, improve and gauge the consensus on-wiki for certain guidelines/styles. This is one reason I object to the WP:SOFIXIT attitude of some nominators at FLC; as if they want us to wave a magic wand over their list.

OK, this is in danger of becoming an essay. I've decided that I'm opposed to these summary tables. I certainly don't want the closing editors to use them (they could very well be out-of-step anyway). We do need to find ways to encourage more reviewers, more discussion between reviewers, and to deal with out-of-time nominations. I don't think this is the solution. Having said that, I support Geraldk's actions: we do have to try new things to see if they work/like them. Colin°Talk 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments after Colin

(Started a new section to make keep things clear). It appears to me there are several different issues that have been raised here. Having read all of the above, I think that tables encourage the FLC process to be treated as a vote, rather than a determination on consensus. One of the advantages of *not* having table is that the closing editor has to read through the comments in order to determine whther or promote. Seperately, I do think that those who contributed significantly to the article should not have their support votes counted. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you changed your mind, or are still in two minds? If the former, would it help to strike your earlier supportive comment? Colin°Talk 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in two minds still. I like that clarity they bring, but don't like the fact it could encourage closing editors to treat this purely as a vote. However, my overall feeling is that the latter outweighs the former, and they should go. (That said, my thanks go to Geraldk for trying to make the process easier, and being [[WP:BOLD]). Tompw (talk) (review) 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think the "Supporting and objecting" guidelines should specifically request:
Those editors who have contributed significantly to the article should refrain from "supporting"; although other comments, including "oppose", are valid. The nomination implicitly counts towards the supporting views.
Does FAC have a guideline on this? Colin°Talk 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:FAC states for supporters If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. WP:GAN requires that the article reviewers cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it. In the interests of transparancy, editors should mention if they have made a significant contribution. In order to bring the FL process into line with FA (and GA), I propose that the first point in the "Supporting and objecting" section on this page be amended to read:

If you support a nomination, write "Support" followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.

(Bold being the new text). Any thoughts/comments/objections? Tompw (talk) (review) 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference with FA is that the "indication" is enough to help Raul with his decisions when closing. With GA, I believe the reviewer closes his own review. On FL, anyone can close and they might not be aware that there is a feeling (consensus?) that support from significant contributors counts for less. With a threshold of only 3-non-nominator supports, I don't think we can accept "fan" support as counting towards the threshold test. However, fans are welcome to extol the virtues of their list, which might influence the other reviewers and the closing editor. Nothing wrong with that. Colin°Talk 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I just spent time adding and updating summary boxes because I like them and last time I looked here it looked like almost everyone else did. It seems the debate has gone in a different direction. I still support the summary tables. I do think 80% support should pass. After reading the above, I still like the summary boxes. However, I will not add any more unless there is some consensus to do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To defend those two I promoted, the 2003 NBA Draft oppose was in fact dealt with if you look at the article, hence the promotion there. The "vote" simply wasn't changed. My other one's a lot harder to defend since I was still new at consensus determining at that time. It was a close call, and I'd probably be reluctant to pass it if I had to redo that. Granted, an FLC should NEVER be up a month. If it is and the oppose hasn't been dealt with to anyone's satisfaction then it should probably have failed. (and if you want to submit it to FLRC if you don't feel it's fl status, then do so. Wizardman 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I did say that I didn't think the promotions required review. Yes, I suppose you could think of the minimum-threshold as similar to a "vote", though there may be occasions when 4 isn't enough. I agree, that nom shouldn't have been up for that long. We (collectively, since there's no director) should have chased up the opposers and nominator to update their positions. Colin°Talk 07:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback wanted at peer review

I just opened a peer review for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A here. I want to use the feedback gained from that and the subsequent FLC to improve all the other LGB people lists to the same standard, so I would be very much appreciative if some of the regulars here who know what an FLC should look like would comment. Thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Different standards

I'm not bitter, but I am confused. Some statements made on the recent FLC for List of Governors of Alabama:

  • "Oppose: Lack of images"
  • "The list still needs refs for the "Higher offices held" section."

The article failed on the strength of these two oppositions. However, I direct you to List of Governors of Kentucky, which has only slightly more images than the Alabama list, and has the same supposed lack of references for the higher offices section. Should I simply renominate this? Kentucky was promoted by a different person as failed Alabama, so maybe they have different ways of handling this? And no, these are not valid objections to Kentucky now, since the FL criteria state they should have been brought up when it was here - and both were on FLC at the same time.

So, someone please clear up my confusion. Was the Alabama list wrongly failed, or was the Kentucky list wrongly promoted? Were the votes merely counted, rather than the substance examined? --Golbez 08:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Each list seemed to attract a different set of reviewers. One got lucky and one got unlucky. I don't think the "lack of images" oppose is valid (perhaps it was in the past, but there seem to be enough images now). If you think an oppose isn't valid or has been resolved, indicate this by responding on the page to help the closing editor (don't strike out or tick someone's comments—that's for them to do). Refs are a serious issue and can't be ignored. A list must be self-supporting; it can't rely on the linked articles for support (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). If there is an overall reference that can support the whole table, then individual citations are not required in that circumstance. They tend to be necessary for dynamic lists. If the "Higher offices held" section is still unreferenced (I haven't checked) then that should be addressed for both lists.
BTW: the letter-based footnotes don't work on these lists. They don't jump to the footnote on Firefox (though the back-link works). On IE they do scroll down but because you haven't labelled the ref, you can't tell which is a or b or c, etc. The usage of letters and numbers is the opposite way round to most WP articles (i.e. it is common to use letters for notes and numbers for sources). I suggest you attempt to resolve these issues and resubmit for FLC. Colin°Talk 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
They work for me... and the refs *are* labelled. --Golbez 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who closed the Alabama nomination. I disregarded the "lack of images" objection, but the references issue was hard to disregard. There has to be a note that indicates what external source has been used to find the info. It was missing, plus I personally didn't like the lead section (I mentioned this in one of the other governor lists), that's why I didn't support this nomination. By the way, the Kentucky list needs that same note, too. --Crzycheetah 17:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

Could someone add a new sentence to step #4 in the Nomination procedure? When one (who's trying to resubmit) follows step #5, he/she doesn't change the links of the first nomination. The problem is that the Failed log shows the latest nomination (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations) which may have been promoted already and not the one that was failed (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1). Step #4 needs to be updated and it needs to state to follow "what links here" and add "/archive1" where necesary. --Crzycheetah 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Closing procedure

Was thinking that, when time extensions are given due to lack of support, we should define a definite process. Specifically, I think the last bit under the Supporting and Objecting header should read: "In these cases the nominated list will receive additional time to attract support. This additional time will not exceed ten days." I know it will lengthen things to have a list on the page for twenty days, but I think we've been failing an unacceptable number of lists due to lack of support rather than outright objection. Thought? Geraldk 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also added a message box to direct reviewers to nominations in need. Thought for that are welcome as well. Geraldk 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to close an FLC?

The List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A FLC's ten days are almost up. May I, the nominator, promote, or would someone else kindly mind doing so? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the ten days aren't up until about 23:00 tomorrow. The discussion should be kept open until then. Geraldk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Good at writing, suck at counting. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

More opinions BADLY needed at WP:FLRC

Because the focus of it is our very definition of "list", there is a strong need for more opinions at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea/archive2.Right now it's basically me vs. the article's staunchly opposed editors, and it's getting tedious something that has nothing to do with the rest on FLC... Circeus 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Images in discography articles

I noticed that in discography articles (or at least the ones nominated at FLC), album and single images are removed from the page. Could someone explain me the reason? Does putting these kind of images qualifies as a major copyright violation? Aren't they considered as fair use regarding that the author of these pictures is easily identifiable and their use is for encyclopedic value (again, i know very little about these issues). I appreciate if someone would clarify. Thank you. CG 09:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use image have been considered inappropriate for lists for several months now, and it's in the end just far too much work to argue with the Fair Use Warriors over this. See also the massive debate over screenshots in episode lists (though I'm serious considering that reintroduction is possible for lists where individual articles don't exists). Circeus 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, a featured list, has become very long, and as such can be difficult to load and edit. In my opinion, a split of some sort is in order; given that the most complete (and therefore longest) section is #Athletics due to excellent sports records, a split to List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes sounds reasonable. If I were to perform such a split, how would I manage the corresponding lists' "featured" status? I was thinking that the old list (of GT alumni) would go through Featured List Review and the new (athletes) list would go through FLC. Any thoughts? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't see why the "old list" would need to go through Featured List Removal, as there aren't really any problems with it- but I figure a Peer Review wouldn't hurt. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting for List of Crowded House awards

I've been monitoring this list/article for a couple of weeks now. Is there a reason it's not being either promoted, failed or commented? I want to get this article to FL, but if I don't get any feedback, I can't really do that. Can I get some more comments, support/opposition (hopefully not) and some reasoning behind these votes?

Thanks. --lincalinca 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2)

The FLC for the above article has been sitting at the bottom of the list with five support votes and no oppose votes for nearly a day now. Can anyone close it, seeing as it has been on this page for fifteen days, and all concerns have been addressed? Perhaps setting a committee of people to determine consensus on FLCs and to close them would be a beneficial thing for this page, and help in clearing potential backlogs. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done. My first closure, incidentally - I hope I've done everything correctly, but please will someone tell me if I didn't, or if I don't have the status required to close. BencherliteTalk 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason I hadn't closed it is because there was still an active discussion going on. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, my apologies if I acted inappropriately, but that's not how it appeared (or appears) to me. The last three comments from editors other than the nominator, spread over five days, were all supports; there was no further comment by Golbez in reply to the nominator's reply to his comment; and nobody else thereafter picked up Golbez's issue as a concern. I saw no outstanding issues and nothing to hinder promotion, given that there were 4 non-nominator supports and no opposes. Or am I missing something? BencherliteTalk 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's okay, I last did my promotion rounds 4 days ago and I haven't had time to do any promotions since, so that's why I missed it. -- Scorpion0422 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh good. I only closed it because (a) the nominator asked for someone to close it and (b) it looked a simple enough promotion decision for my first close! BencherliteTalk 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the closure. Just remember to change the status of the article to FA-class on any relevant WikiProject tags that are on the talk page. Again, thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't on the checklist of things to do, so I didn't (and nor did the person who closed a FLC I nominated a while ago), but it's a good idea, I agree. BencherliteTalk 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review before nomination

Hi, please take a look at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Harry_Potter_in_translation and add your two cents: should the list in question be split away from the article or left as is? --woggly 09:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Breeders discography

Just to note that The Breeders discography has had four supports over ten days. The FLC is here. CloudNine 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Fate/stay night episodes

Just placing this out there - List of Fate/stay night episodes has been sitting for two additional days with four supports. See here. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Promoted. Toohool 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New FL on the Main Page proposal

We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking for comments on FLC and FAC

Is it okay to go to editors talk pages and ask them to comment, support or oppose nominations for FLs and FA if they have edited the page being nominated? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CANVAS. You have to keep any notice neutral so you certainly mustn't ask people to support/oppose anything. On FAC, editors who have "been a significant contributor to the article" are expected to declare this if they support. FLC is a bit less formal but IMO, it is bad form to support something you were significantly involved in creating. The nominator is the obvious exception to this and would naturally be expected to support their own work. If other involved-editors wish to Comment, that's fine. You may find such editors have the article in their watchlists and will spot the FLC notice going up on the talk page. Colin°Talk 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Overtime" box

I think that this has become a pretty essential part of the page, but I think it is time we turn it into a template subpage, such as the backlog templates (and subpages) used on pages such as WP:PR and WP:GAR. I also think that we should add "Update the overtime box" as a step to take when closing a nomination, as it seems to be often overlooked. Rai-me 00:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are other pages to use the template on, (as is the case with e.g. the generic {{backlog}} template, or {{DYK-Refresh}}, used on several DYK-related pages), having a template is pointless, and makes updating said template morecomplicated than updating the page itself. Circeus 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/backlog template is used on only one page, and most find that it makes the backlog easier to update, as one only has to click on an "update" link. And for the instructions for closing a nomination, an easy link to the template would be provided that would make updating very easy, perhaps even less time consuming than updating the current template is. Rai-me 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. It's actually a subpage, not a template.
  2. It is neither transcluded, nor linked to by any page (or I'm missing something obvious. It's really weird).
  3. You can have update links with sections quite easily.
Circeus 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it is a subpage,my mistake. FLC's hypothetical new backlog notice could also be a subpage. The GAR subpage is usually linked, but has been very recently removed, as there is not currently a backlog on the page. It will likely be in back in use very soon. And I know that sections can be easily linked, but subpages/templates seem to be common with other projects with backlogs, so why not here? Adding some sort of link to a subpage or a template would be faster than the current method of updating the overtime box, which does not provide a link to a section. However, I would not be opposed to leaving the overtime box as is, as long as an easy link to the specific section is provided in the nomination procedure. Rai-me 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There are ways to update the box and remove a transcluded FLC in the same edit. {{FA number}} is updated directly from Wikipedia:Featured articles, so updating the count there affects the template as well. We could have something like that for the overtime box. Spebi 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Do "Content navigation" listings belong here?

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#Other "content navigation" pages. Please comment over there. Colin°Talk 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) OK. The Portal guys weren't interested.

I'd like some discussion please because I'm really struggling to see how a contents page (useful though it may be) could be Featured along with encyclopaedic lists and articles. The big distinction I see is that pages like List of basic geography topics are focussed helping users find and browse Wikipedia articles. They don't contain any substantial non-obvious information on their own (they'd need references if they did). They generally don't contain much of a lead, which is fine. The criteria for entry on such lists is vague and wide. Clearly, not all Geography articles can fit on one page so someone has to make a subjective choice. The grouping into section headings is also subject to subjective and aesthetic choice. I don't have a problem with that but it isn't how normal articles and lists are made. Essentially, this is a more useful layout than the category system can provide but doesn't add anything beyond selection and organisation.

I don't mean to disparage the work The Transhumanist has done on such topic pages. I just think they are a different beast and don't wish to see the two muddled up. If editors do want to see such pages on FL, then can we define some clear adjustments to the FL criteria. Otherwise we're going to see an unsourced List of basic Simpsons topics pop up and expect to get featured. Colin°Talk 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics‎ -- closure

The following comments were made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics‎ after it was closed. I'ved moved them here since the discussion on that page has closed. Colin°Talk 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a decision to be made from someone other than a participant in the discussion. It seems inappropriate for someone who voted in the discussion to close it. Five supporters vs. two opposers appears to be a pretty clear consensus of support. Since a participant in the discussion closed the discussion, on the minority side to boot, it appears that conflict of interest has entered into it. The Transhumanist 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you would have had to wait over a week otherwise. It's not really a conflict of interest. You rarely see FA or FLCs pass when more than one opposer doesn't feel that their concerns have been addressed. I've seen some that were 8-1 in favour that failed. -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FL class

I have gotten list class added to the quality log. I am trying to get FL class added here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a place for Peer Reviews

I've recently read a few comments from users that give me the impression that they are treating this place more as a peer review than anything. Should it be noted somewhere on the page that one should not nominate a list solely for feedback, or is it necessary? -- Scorpion0422 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a degree of overlap to an extent and that is one of the problems with the current setup. I think some people (myself included) leave comments like: Any comments/improvements would be welcome, simply to show that we are open-minded and not averse to constructive criticism. We do have the You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review. in the instructions, we could rephrase it to some more forceful language but would anyone take any notice? Woodym555 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Many people, however, do treat an attempt to acquire featured status, whether it is at WP:FAC, WP:FLC, or other places, as more effective than a peer review simply because more people are present at the aforementioned pages than at WP:PR. Furthermore, the prospect of being able to resolve all the problems means an article or list of featured status, which is an enticing goal. If nominations aren't up to par, then they fail; if they are, they pass. I think it's fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to use any names, but I recently saw a conversation where two users agreed that a list would never pass an FLC, but one suggested submitting it anyway just for the review. That seems kind of like abusing the process, because we have a hard enough time getting 3 or 4 votes in FLCs as it is without users who know their lists won't pass clogging up the process with nominations of subpar lists. -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should introduce a speedy close system? If an FLC has 3 or 4 oppose votes within 5 days, then it can be speedily closed, that way the obvious fail noms will be off of the page quicker. -- Scorpion0422 —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree but only with 3 or 4 aggregate votes. I would worry that some people oppose for different problems. Some would oppose if a wikilink was out of place instead of Commenting. It could be open to abuse that way. Woodym555 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, we wouldn't have to make the specifics of the policy public, we could just say that "articles with significant opposition may be closed early" or something like that. I think Raul has some kind of speedy closure policy for FAs, but it's difficult to tell what his limit is because he usually only closes articles once a week. While we're on the topic of speedy closures, I don't think we should have a speedy promotion system. I've seen FAs with plenty of support passed after a few days, but I disagree with speedy promotes because you never know who will show up and oppose and when they will do it. -- Scorpion0422 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the speedy failure. A loose system whereby if a list is obviously going to fail then it should be speedy failed. A forced withdrawal if you will. I also agree that speedy promotions are not productive. I think a defined time limit works well. I will freely admit that i have supported an article and then things have been brought up by other editors that need fixing. Woodym555 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be fine. Lists that have existing problems that would be painfully difficult to surmount should simply be failed. A prime example of this is Religions by country, which has a bucketload of problems at its nomination, and with the nominator making no effort to meet any of the complaints raised, I highly doubt it will be able to resolve all the issues in ten days. This system would allow for this nomination to be closed and open up space. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we not WP:SNOW fail that. It won't pass, it has too many problems. Although I do remember the FLC of Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War had a rough ride, but two editors put in a lot of hard work, turning it round. Woodym555 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
But if a list does get a lot of early trouble, then there is no reason why it couldn't be renominated, right? -- Scorpion0422 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's true. In any case, so long as the nominator is making a genuine effort to meet all of the concerns, or discussion is going on about the concerns (assuming that the concerns can be resolved without a huge effort), then the nomination can remain open. Lists that have pile-on opposes, or cases where the nominator is clearly not making any effort to improve the article, can be closed. And yeah, they can simply renominate them after improvements are made. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me started on Peer Review. Half the articles don't get any feedback whatsoever, except for an automated review which is not very helpful. If someone is willing to offer construvtive criticism, be it here or somewhere else, let them. Whatever improves the encyclopedia. Drewcifer 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So are we in agreement that a Speedy close policy will be implemented in cases where:

  • A nom has been open more than 2 days and has 3 oppose votes and the nominator hasn't replied at all
  • A nom has been open more than 5 days and has 4 oppose votes and the nominator doesn't appear to be even trying to address concenrs.

And this would be implemented as of now, so the current lists that would meet those guidelines wouldn't count, or else the nominators would say we were conspiring against them or something. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That could work. We should only really speedy close when WP:SNOW applies, and these requirements show that. Also, this set of requirements does not alienate those editors who make herculean efforts to fix articles and meet all suggestions, which is good. I would say implement them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added "Articles that have gained significant opposition and the nominator has made few attempts to address these concerns may be closed early." at the end of the "Supporting and objecting" section. This goes into effect as of now, so any articles nominated AFTER today will be subject to it, but the any current noms are safe. -- Scorpion0422 00:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly question

Stupid question, but why is every list article nowadays called "List of ___"? A little self-referntial and a bit obvious don't you think? ie List of 50 Cent awards, List of films that received the Golden Film, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (Chapter Black Saga), etc. What's wrong with 50 Cent awards, Films that received the Golden Film, or YuYu Hakusho episodes (Chapter Black Saga)? No other type of article does this. "Biography of 50 Cent" "Category of films that received the Golden Film" etc. Just wondering. Drewcifer 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just emphasizes that they're a list. The best example I can find for this is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Metal Gear Solid characters, two articles of featured quality (FA and FL respectively) that approach the subject material in a different manner. The first treats the characters as a whole in an article, commenting on character design, development, merchandise, and critical reception. The second treats the characters in a list format, including out-of-universe information along with the characters. It just makes it clear to the reader whether the article is a list or not. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see that much of a difference between the two. The only difference between them is the "Cast creation and influences" section in Final Fantasy article. But all that is besides the point: I realize that saying "List of.." emphasizes the fact that they it is a list, but why should that be a concern in the article's title? That's more a meta-wiki thing, and we try and avoid self-referencing whenever possible, right? Drewcifer 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The presence of (rather large and extensive) development and reception sections in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII sets it apart from List of Metal Gear Solid characters, emphasizing the fact that it's far more an article than it is a list. Anyhow, my point in using those two was that the Final Fantasy character article talked about the characters in general (hence the development and receptions sections), while the Metal Gear Solid character list simply listed the characters. Not including "List of..." implies that the article talks about the subject as a whole (in a significant fashion, indicating that the article is not a list) rather than a collected list of items. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wondering if there can be redlinks in FLs. The one I am working on has red links...List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. Miranda 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If they don't have a page, then are they really notable enough for inclusion in such a list? But, in answer to your question, a page that is mostly redlinks is usually excuseable under criterion 1a3 if it is part of a topic of significant study. However, in this case, a page where less than half are red links, it should be okay, for example, see List of Survivor contestants where only about 60% of the people listed have their own pages. -- Scorpion0422 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles have redlinks, because I haven't created them, yet. Miranda 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

During a recent spat

User:Spebi closed the FLC nomination for The Simpsons shorts sans the necessary four supports, citing consensus gained through a lack of opposes. While I'm fairly certain that this is a result of a lack of people looking at the article rather than people not finding anything wrong with it, I'm not opposed to such early closes. To have this, however, would require a "featured list director" or two in the vein of Raul or Sandy at WP:FAC in order to determine whether consensus is really present. At the recent FLC nominations for List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1), List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2), and List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3), each nomination basically sat for multiple days after the ten day limit with three supports, and consensus was clearly in favor of it passing. Again, someone will have to take on a "featured list director" role for this to work, but it could be done. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary. Just because I stuffed up in your opinion doesn't mean that we should immediately implement some guy to run the whole show. For the record, I closed that FLC because I saw that consensus had been reached, and decided to ignore the "4 supports" rule. Let me make a note of the fact that your list of episodes, Sephiroth, are pretty much in the same boat as The Simpsons shorts. Both ran for the right time, both received not enough supports under the current rule, and both were promoted – I really don't see any difference, apart from your "certain-ness" that The Simpsons shorts didn't get those extra supports because it wasn't running long enough (which it was). Spebi 08:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm just raising the point for possible discussion on the matter. Also note that those episode lists do have four supports, as the nominator counts as a support. I'm less worried about your close and more that this simply adds a precedent for people to arbitrarily close such nominations citing WP:IGNORE when such nominations are of lists that shouldn't be promoted, and suffered from a lack of enough eyes on the article rather than the article lacking any such flaws. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because I did it doesn't mean everyone else is going to start doing it. I think that newbies to FLC closing will be more inclined to strictly follow the rules in place about closing, rather than immediately closing prematurely and citing WP:IGNORE. So let's get this straight: your lists and The Simpsons shorts both ran for the right time, both had opportunity to receive feedback in the form of opposes. How come no one screamed "premature close" on your lists, but on The Simpsons shorts, who are in pretty much the same circumstances? I'm not going to continue the debate over your lists and the one I promoted, however, I will say that I believe that I acted appropriately by closing the FLC with only 2 supports. As for the director, you only suggest that one be implemented to prevent this sort of stuff from happening. I don't see any point of putting one in. Spebi 08:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Because there are four supports on those lists. Mine and three other users. Anyhow, I was bringing this up just since I was curious about any implications of such a proposal. 'night, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As an occasional visitor to these pages, I agree that closing that FL with one non-nominator support was inappropriate. That is far too low a level to show a general consensus that the list was of the highest quality to be found on Wikipedia. These are not the most highly trafficked pages, unfortunately, which is why the "overtime box" developed. It does not matter in the grand scheme of things if lists wait beyond the 10 days to gain the necessary level of support. Consensus should be measured by those who actually participate, not by assuming that others who have been to these pages tacitly supported. On the contrary, someone may have been tempted to oppose this one but thought it unnecessary in the absence of any sign that consensus was moving in favour of promotion. It is also "unfair" on those lists that have consistently been closed as "fail" on the grounds of lack of 4 support votes for one closer to decide that the standard should change without prior discussion. BencherliteTalk 09:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless we reach some sort of consensus about it, we should not close any FLCs before it has four supports, and I don't think an FL director is really needed. -- Scorpion0422 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

An issue that needs clarifying

If List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) was divided into List of Naruto episodes (season 1) and List of Naruto episodes (season 2) (and coincidentally, List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) as well), would an editor be able to remove the featured status if there was a consensus to split the article, or would WP:FLRC be necessary? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have to automatically be delisted, then the two new lists would have to be nominated. But why would you want to split them? The page isn't that long. -- Scorpion0422 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It's just that the manner in which they were initially split was rather arbitrary, and was based around a desire to deal with less vandalism rather than concentrating on the pages themselves. Given that practically every single other episode list that composes multiple seasons (List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes) uses singular seasons, there's really no reason for these lists to deviate either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't think it's necessary. The page looks good as it is and not every list has parts for single seasons. In fact, only the really notable primetime shows and a few animes have pages for seperate seasons. -- Scorpion0422 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Even so, I'm leaving it to local consensus as to how they wish to treat the issue. I was just curious over whether a singular use could remove featured status in that situation, or a nomination at WP:FLRC would be necessary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Few people seem to regularly visit Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates.

That problem could be solved by having removal noms posted on the same page as regular noms.

There doesn't seem to be that many noms to remove anyways, and all they need is "(remove)" added to the title.

The Transhumanist 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The removal noms are already transcluded here. -- Scorpion0422 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Proposal withdrawn. The Transhumanist (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gimmebot?

Today, Gimmetrow offered to help use with us with his bot, which helps out Raul when he closes FAs. It is run semi-automatically. It looks for new tranclusion in the pass/fail logs, tags them as closed, moves the page if it's a fail (to make room for a later nomination), and updates the article/list talk page. We would still edit the log to add the transclusion, and put the article on the WP:FL list. Here is an example set of bot edits for a former FA.

I have considered asking him in the past, but I'm not entirely sure if it's necessary. Raul closes 20 FAs at a time, whereas here my record for most closes at once is seven, so there isn't as much work involved. However, since I'm not the only one who closes FLs, if anyone else thinks it would help, I'd be willing to switch over. -- Scorpion0422 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How things work with the Gimmebot

I've decided to use the Gimmebot for all my future promotions. User:Gimmetrow has the page on watch and says he'll be able to have it up and running within hours of a promotion. However, the process is still only semi-automatic, and there are still some things that need to be done manually:

You no longer have to leave any kind of message on the FLC page, or update the actual article. The bot works by reading new stuff put in the promoted/failed logs and goes from there. I gave it a test yesterday and it worked well enough, so I think I'll start using it from now on. However, it means that we would have to eliminate the vote tallies, but I'm thinking of perhaps adding a special box for that that would only have the final tallies, and then the bot could still add the normal stuff.

If anyone has any questions about the bot, ask User:Gimmetrow. -- Scorpion0422 21:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Used it today, works well. I just added in a comment at the bottom of the nom. Seems like a sensible move to me, especially for the failed noms and the integration with the article history template. Woody (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Process looks nice and efficient. Good decision. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We now currently have 502 Featured lists, which means we have reached the big 5-0-0! For those who are curious, the 500th one would be the second that I promoted today, which is List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks. Congratulations, and here's to 500 more in 2008. -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, bring on 1000. Woody (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sweet, thats cool that my list was #500, I feel so Wiki-cool, lol.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of works by William Monahan

Hello: This list is currently in the middle of a debate on where certain lists w/ prose belong. See:

and

If several FLC reviewers could chime in with their opinions that would be excellent and would really help shape the debate.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this FLC be restarted?

This FLC currently has three support votes, and the nominating editor asked all three to go and vote there: [1] [2] [3] and all three are from his project. In my mind, that ought to be an automatic restart of the nom. Opinions? -- Scorpion0422 03:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The distinction we need to make here is the difference between open canvassing and a friendly notice. Asking a person to review or leave comments at an FLC is perfectly fine, especially in cases where FLCs are sitting past ten days with say three supports. I've had instances where users asked to comment on an article have opposed it. On the other hand, openly asking a user to support is canvassing, and their !vote should be struck and disregarded. The grey area is asking someone to comment that you know will support it without looking at any of the criteria, and here we have to determine whether the line established by WP:AGF is passed or not. In this case, even though I can assume good faith in the user asking editors he has worked with closely in reviewing this article, I would prefer that other people review. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all of the time, I guess this time I was just lucky enough to discover it. His comments seem perfectly reasonable, but I still have my doubts because WP:PW has a long history of supporting eachothers FLCs (I've asked them not to support each other's FLCs before) and not really leaving any comments. In one case, an FLC had support from seven members, only two of whom left comments. The list in question (in my opinion) barely passes the notability test and the table could easily be improved substantially. The user asked these three to look at the FLC after I left comments similar to that, which is why I am suspicious. -- Scorpion0422 03:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I very much dislike any singular person asking another singular person to to go somewhere and comment in a forum that has votes. If the person who was asked just came and commented, giving tips or suggestions, than that is perfectly fine. Also if a certain person has created a bunch of FL's about one subject and someone else creates a list in the same subject area, than asking for input or comments is perfectly fine. I would rather see a note going out to a Wikiproject asking for input than to singular people though, because I could of course go and find four people who would vote Support for Green Bay Packers seasons pretty easily, but that defeats the purpose of having Featured Content. Personally I wouldnt just restart the FLC, instead I would talk to each person involved (if you havent already) and see what their side of the story is and of course AGF. Also, remember that just receiving four supports does make it featured. If there are 4 supports and 1 oppose, but the oppose has a good argument and the corrections havent been fixed, than the list should fail. If it seems like there was inappropriate behavior than I would just indent their votes and let the process go on the way it should. Just my two-cents :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 06:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Difficult. I would place a warning at the top of the debate - as we do in stuffed AfD debates - saying this is not a vote it's a discussion. I would also basically ignore any dubious supports when closing (how you define "dubious" is up to your discretion as closer).
Incidentally, I think that it's not the job of FAC/FLC to determine issues of notability. If there's genuine doubt that the candidate should even be an article the proper procedure imho would be to close the debate and send the article to AfD.
Hope that helps. --kingboyk (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with kingboyk that suspension & AfD is the way to deal with article notability. I'm afraid I know nothing about the sport but agree that a single TV program on one cable channel that can't even be bothered to televise the whole thing is fairly minor stuff. Colin°Talk 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: there is a current discussion wrt vote stacking on FLC/FAC here. Please join in. Colin°Talk 16:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing reliability of sources in FL candidacies

I'm preparing a discography for possible submission to FLC. When looking at 3 featured discographies, I found questionable sources in 2 of them (the sort that would need a little explanation about the authorativeness of the source in order to placate the reader). 1 of them had blatantly not reliable sources, including a Ukranian MP3 site! I would urge reviewers and whoever closes the nominations to ensure they actually look at cited sources and don't just count the number of footnotes. Otherwise we risk having featured articles which are actually sourced from a load of dodgy websites and that is very, very dangerous. --kingboyk (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Which ones are they and are the sources band specific fansites are some general website? -- Scorpion0422 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm making a general point for going forward, I'm not wishing to get anybody into any trouble :) I've tagged the references which are questionable and left notes on the talk pages. They're a variety actually - aforementioned MP3 site, a CD retailer, general hip hop sites, band specific web sites, self-published (i.e. one-man-band) websites, etc. --kingboyk (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
If you look at our featured discographies, you'll probably weep. I seem to remember giving yours a hard time aeons ago. The contrast between the KLF discography and supporting articles, and some of the current cruft, is huge. BTW: if you don't get a response to your talk page notes, they should come to FL removal. Just like you, people look at FLs to gauge the standard; unlike you, they won't question what they see. Colin°Talk 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably did. IIRC, it got about 50% strong support and 50% strong opposition :) I'm currently refactoring it to mirror the existing Featured discographies and have addressed the complaints from last time, so expect it to see back it here soon. In the meantime, if you want to have a look and leave me any comments please do (it's back at The KLF discography). --kingboyk (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree with all the sentiments expressed here: I think the way we promote FL discographies still had as ways to go until it is perfect. I'd say this is an especially important thing to bring up since it seems discographies are becoming the most popular type of list to nominate. So perhaps in the interests of forming a better name for FL, we should sweep through the current FL discographies and make comments on the article's talk pages wherever neccessary. And for the record, I think the article talk pages are a better place to do so than people's talk pages. Drewcifer (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


List naming convention: "of" vs. "in"

I figured I'd ask here since none of the other possible talk pages have been very active, if at all.

I'm currently embroiled in a tiresome argument with Noroton (talk · contribs) (see our respective talk pages) over the fact I moved his List of mammals in Connecticut. Long story short, the only reason most lists in Category:Regional mammal lists are at "in" is that I haven't gotten around to move them. Otherwise, lists of organisms are at "of", but he's now arguing that because lists in general (as opposed to the relevant topical lists) have both "in" and "of", I can't argue against placing this list at "in". Can anybody try to weigh in? Circeus (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore Circeus' attitude and stick to the subject: I did some thinking before I named the article and even changed the name once. When possible, the names of Wikipedia articles of any standard type should be uniform so that readers who already have a sense of how Wikipedia names things can search for an article with a minimum of fuss. We tend to name geography-specific "List of people" articles as "List of people from Foo" for instance. I don't see a consensus on "list of organisms" articles. Lists of birds by geography, for instance, seems to be done as List of North American birds. (I was wrong: Most bird lists use "of") I did see what looked like a norm for mammals lists at Category:Regional mammals lists, where the vast majority say "in". IF we're going to standardize "List of X by geograpnhy" articles, then we should follow common practice already in place unless there's a good reason to change it. The vast majority of geography-specific lists use "in Foo", especially when the items (buildings & structures, police districts) don't tend to move ("List of rivers in Foo" articles are an exception, and there are a few others). Take a look at Category:United Kingdom-related lists and Category:United States-related lists, and Category:Canada-related lists for examples.Noroton (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (later self edit Noroton (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )

Circeus has cross-posted this at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#List naming dispute: "in" vs. "of" Please respond there. We shouldn't have two different discussions at the same time. Noroton (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

LOTD

Now that WP:LOTD is up and running we were trying to expose it to readers at WP:FC by adding {{ListoftheDaylayout}}. This has been controversial. Please comment at Portal_talk:Featured_content#List_of_the_Day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah! I dont like this!

Now I am all for WP:AGF and all here, and I fully trust User:Crzycheetah did all this in good faith, but that still doesnt mean I can agree with what happened. Crzycheetah closed both Royal Rumble (while stating in the edit history he was promoting List of Kingdom Hearts media) and List of United States business school rankings at the same time that he supported each list, and each time his vote became the fourth vote. Now closing an obvious FLC that you participated in (such as a 9 support to no oppose, etc) is probably okay, but closing a highly debated FLC where you became the fourth support vote, and your vote was just Support is not only against WP:COI but of poor taste. That is why Scorpion only comments on or opposes a FLC that he feels he is going to close, that is why the two FLC that I just promoted lacked any comments from me, because the closer is supposed to be objective to the discussion at hand, that is how it works at XFD, RFA, and pretty much every other place in Wikipedia. I would really like to see the discussions that were obviously prematurely closed to be reopened so that they can garner the proper support and be objectively closed, while I also would like Crzycheetah to not do anymore of these types of closes. The two discussions in question can be found at: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Royal Rumble and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings while Crzycheetah's contribs can be found here. Any input is welcome.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Those kind of closes are common around here. The nominations you closed today, I opposed, but you went ahead and promoted. Scorpion closed a couple of nom. with opposes, as well. What's the problem?--Crzycheetah 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to the two noms I closed: I didn't see any on going dicussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States business school rankings and at Rumble's nom, the oppose was irrelevant because there was a precedent when an article was passed as a list.--Crzycheetah 21:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I thought that of the four noms closed today, all but the List of United States business school rankings could have benefitted from a few more days worth of discussion, because the list of Poker hands and Calgary Flames seasons lists all had strong opposition. -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Its not the fact that there were opposes or discussion (that just stupid, of course noms are closed with opposes on them), it is the fact that you supported a nom at the same exact time that you closed the discussion. I could care less if there are opposes, that is open for an objective closer to decide whether or not the opposes lack merit (which is what I did on the noms I closed, there was obvious consensus to promote from outside editors). The closer though should be separate from th discussion, insomuch that if the closer voted oppose, than I would hate to see the that person close the nom as failed, and vice-versa (Ideally the closer should be totally separate from the FLC (excluding just commenting of course). This is the definition of WP:COI. I would rather see the FLC's get another support from another editor, than you go and close them. You voting and closing at the same time makes it so the FLC lack transparency, usually everyones vote will stand on the main page for a couple of days, or at least a couple of hours, so that each vote can be examined by the community. I just disliked how you supported and then closed in your favor the noms. If you are going to support, then do so and someone else will close them, and if you want to close these then wait for the proper support because if we dont count your support, neither list reached the required 4 supports needed for promotion. Do you see what I am saying?
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
And my point here is not whether or not the list should have been promoted, we have WP:FLCR if you feel a list shouldnt be promoted, my point is the way that they were not objectively closed. If you have any problems with the ones I closed feel free to bring it to my talk page or in a separate section, I will answer any questions asked of me.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I kind of agree with the sentiments expressed here: I just have a problem with promoting an article that clearly has Oppose votes, especially if they are actionable. X number of Supports but even 1 Oppose vote does not equal a consensus. If a consensus cannot be reached within a reasonable time frame, then the FLC should by all means be closed, but the article should not be promoted. That's how FA, a sister project, works, so why not FL? Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
To address the oppose subject, if the oppose has been fixed by the nominator, or the oppose is unfounded or doesnt help the article, it can be disregarded, and yes consensus can be reached with oppose votes. If that weren't the case I think we would have like 50 admins, because almost every RFA gets at least one oppose. I see your point about opposes, and if they havent been addresses or are serious issues, than of course the list shouldnt be promoted, but again I am more about setting out a COI issue here, and whether or not closing FLC's that you voted in, in your favor should be allowed.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In this case though, the point of a discussion is to make a list as good as possible, so if there are comments or opposition, I like to try to give them a chance to be addressed.
And going back a little, I've supported & closed noms at the same time before. Basically, if an FLC has three supports but no opposition and has been there for 15 days, and I think it meets the conditions, I'll support it solely so that it can be passed. This is because we're usually lucky if we get three support votes within 10 days here, so I only support the more obvious ones in order to be able to close them. -- Scorpion0422 —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah but the top of WP:FL says that the list requires 4 supports. One support would be the nom, and then one would be the closer, so in theory only 2 people would have to support to get a list passed. I also disliked how he just voted support and closed at the same time. Maybe if he supported and waited a couple of hours than closed it wouldnt have been that bad. Also, he just voted support, which precedence has shown that just voting Support or Oppose usually will get your vote indented or disregarded. I think a combo of things made me unhappy with these closes, and I would rather see him vote support, than have you or me or someone else go and close the nom for the sake of policy and transparency.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
As Scorpion has already mentioned, if the nomination stays for more than 10 days, and just in need of one support to be promoted, I can support and close that nomination. In these cases, I don't see any problems. There is no "closer" around here, anyone has a right to close a nomination, even people who expressed their opinions in that specific nomination. I think the only person who shouldn't in any circumstances close the nomination is the nominator, even though there were such cases, as well.--Crzycheetah 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to add that only opposes without any explanation should be disregarded,. What did you want me to write, "good list" or "I like it"? The reason people support a list or an article is self-explanatory, no need to mention it.--Crzycheetah 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent)(edit conflict)Well if that is the case here at WP:FL, then so be it. I just thought since pretty much everywhere else in Wikipedia, anyone who has voted in a discussion should not close anything unless it is blatantly obvious. Could you imagine if an WP:RFA was at 69.9% and the closing 'crat voted support to get it over 70% and then closed it as promoted? In the future, I would rather see you at least give it a couple hours after your vote, to allow easy transparency of your vote to others, before you close, or preferably, if the nom is even close to debatable, to go to someone else and ask them to close the nom so that, like I said earlier, there is no question of a WP:COI. Also please make sure that in your edit summary you say the name of the right nom that you are promoting (I know this was probably just an honest mistake) but its confusing if you say you are promoting one list while you are actually promoting another. No hard feelings, I just wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page of on how we are closing these things. It seemed a little confusing to me because Im used to how they do it elsewhere in the Wiki. Happy New Year everyone.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I would rather see something other than support, but that is subjective. I have never found nor do I expect to find a perfect list, so I usually try to give a suggestion of what could be changed, or tell them what is good about the list, so that when newcomers do come here, they know what is good and what isnt in a featured list. But I guess its not a must, I just have found that explaining your actions make things a lot easier to understand.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The activity of WP:FLC and WP:RFA can't be compared. Here at FLC, if we get 4 people in 10 days to comment in any nom, we consider it lucky. Especially, the lists that are not as popular and don't have a WikiProject. You should have seen the nominations this summer, some were open for 30 days because there was just one comment or even no comments at all. As for the edit summary, yes I messed up because my comp. saves history and when I typed "promoting" it automatically brought the last comment I made starting with that word. I noticed it just after I already clicked on "save page" and I apologize for that.--Crzycheetah 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
My example was just to show how different areas of the Wiki are, and how IMO we should be uniform in our policies about closing all noms. And don't worry about the typo, I figured as much, it just took me a couple of seconds of confusion to figure it out :P
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I find the requirement to have a fixed number of supports somewhat objectionable anyway. Compliance with the requirements and a consensus to promote should be all that's needed. Is there any reason why the requirement for 4 supports was introduced? Is it time to remove that requirement? --kingboyk (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, because the reason for the four vote minimum is to ensure that at least a few people see the FLC, and then a page can't be passed on one or two supports. Besides, reaching four votes does not guarantee a pass anyway. -- Scorpion0422 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Second and subsequent nominations

The instructions say:

If you are resubmitting an article, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the {{FLCfailed}} template of the article's talk page.

I think this is harder than it needs be, and it is liable to leave behind broken links. Imho, it would be easier and better to add a parameter to {{FLC}} for the nomination page name, so that new noms can take the form of e.g. "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography (2nd nomination)".

Would such a scheme present any problems and if not does anyone object to me modifying the template and instructions? --kingboyk (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with the GimmeBot doing things now, it automatically corrects all of the links. -- Scorpion0422 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to take your word for that as I fixed them myself (sigh) but nonetheless it's still creating extra work. --kingboyk (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

College Football All-America Teams

I have created two sample lists for early College Football All-America Teams. They are:

Before rolling out further into other years, I would be interested in any feeback that folks here might have.Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this reworded?

In the "Supporting and objecting" section it says "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." However, a user here is currently misinterpreting it as saying that it is okay to ignore the FL criteria if it is not fixable. I believe the user is thinking that the word addressed means fixed, and it has to be something that can be changed, but it shouldn't be that way. I have always interpreted it as being targetted more at opposition based on non-criteria, not opposition based on criteria. Should this be reworded, or is it okay? -- Scorpion0422 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Scorpion0422, the meaning behind that statement is to stop people from giving outrageous rationales for opposing. Such as opposing because someone chose blue highlight instead of yellow, or something stupid like that. I think that it may need to be reworded in saying that the only criteria that you can base an oppose on is the FL criteria, that suggestions and comments are of course welcome but opposes must be based on the criteria.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

An FL sweeps?

I've been looking over some older FLs and I'm starting to think that we should do an FL sweeps pass sort of thing of some of the pre-2007 lists. Some of these older FLs have fallen into real neglect and unfortunately not enough people notice it. The GA folks often do things like that (more info), although the processes are quite a bit different, we'd still be able to find some of the less maintained lists out there and put them up for review. -- Scorpion0422 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea to me. While some FLs are well maintained, some of the older ones have not been and in still being listed as FLs, I think they degrade the FL designation. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at some of the older FLs, and I found some that definitely need to be improved so that they are at the current standard. The problem is that if they were FAs, they all likely would have already gone through an FAR by now and would have been improved, but many of them have been neglected.

  1. List of particles
  2. Battles of the Mexican-American War
  3. List of English Twenty20 International cricketers
  4. List of Australian Twenty20 International cricketers
  5. List of Northwest Territories general elections (lack of citations, and the ones that are there follow the old format)
  6. List of Canadian provincial and territorial orders
  7. List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by date joined
  8. List of United Nations peacekeeping missions
  9. List of United States Senate committees
  10. Periodic table (large version)
  11. List of Ohio county name etymologies
  12. List of cultural references in The Cantos

-- Scorpion0422 04:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. We should do a pass, and start doing them on a regular basis in some sort of organized way, starting with your list above. How long are you going to wait on your editor warnings before putting them up for review? List of particles, at least, has seen no edits since your 1/12 posting on the talk page. Geraldk (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
With the List of Super Bowl champions, there was a message for almost 2 months and nobody did anything about it until I put it up for FLR, so perhaps we should just go ahead with some FLRs so that people will get to work. -- Scorpion0422 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but maybe we should try to do a little bit at a time. FLC is already a bit backlogged, so adding 12+ reviews all at once might be a mistake. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
An FLR requires a minimum of 2 weeks, so perhaps 3 or 4 for now, then a couple more can be nominated when the current FLRs finish. -- Scorpion0422 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Should we start with the first four on your list, or should we start at the top of the FL list and go a little at a time? Geraldk (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review question

Hi, working on a future FLC but I've never done one of these before. Is there a venue I can go for peer review/ideas before nominating, as I obviously don't want to waste people's time taking something to FLC that is not ready. Thanks Orderinchaos 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the article falls under a certain project, check there to see if they have an "in-house" review process. If not, then submit it for a regular peer review, which can take lists as well as articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the volume of featured list candidates, does anyone think the idea of a list peer review would be useful? This would aid greatly in minimising the candidates page, as well as ensuring that all nominations are at least close to being featured list class when they arrive here. Any thoughts? Seaserpent85 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think it would be good (and nice). I have some lists I'm prepping for FL, but would love to be able to get them peer reviewed first. While I think lists can be done in the regular peer review, unfortunately I think a lot of times they get even less feedback than regular ones. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about everyone else here, but I've rarely had success with peer reviews. My requests have tended to go completely absent of comments, except for the automated review thingie. So I'm not much of a fan of that process. People only seem to give suggestions/comments on articles/lists if a promotion is at stake. That, and dividing the FL workload between two places might actually slow things down rather than speed it up. Drewcifer (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It would all depend on seeing how many people would be willing to be active "list reviewers", I guess. The problem with the present peer review is that it includes a mish-mash of everything; articles trying for FA, articles trying for GA and lists trying for FL - hence reviewers pick and choose what to review. I'd assume that those active in the FL area would be more likely to comment at a list review than at the general peer review, especially if it was favoured that FLCs had been through a list review. I'm fairly active with featured portals, and the way it works there is that any nominations with evident problems are directed to the portal peer review. This stops those seeking comments and improvements clogging up the nomination page just to get feedback - whether or not that would work with the volume we have here is another matter, I guess. Seaserpent85 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) I agree on all points. Stagger the notices on talk pages, those that are working to improve them can be left for as long as it takes. I have left a note on Battles of the Mexican-American War and am watching it. If no-one is watching, I will take it on myself. I do think that FLC is backlogged though, even with a couple of speedy closes recently. I think the trouble is that people are using us as a PR. Back to the point though, we do need a sweep. Woody (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some revisions to the instructions template

I made added a few sentences to the FLC instructions template, and I just wanted to make sure everyone approved. It's basically common sense stuff, but based on some recent FLCs, I figured it was best to reiterate some things. [4] -- Scorpion0422 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reducing the length of FLC's

Since we have gotten more and more FLC's here recently, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for reducing the length of nominations that have extended conversation on them. Look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Christopher Walken filmography for two examples of excessively long comments that make the WP:FLC very long. I dont have anything wrong with having long comments, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to maybe shorten these comments. Some ideas I had were add to the instructions that if you feel there is a lot needed, to put your comments on the talk page of the nom page and add a comment to the nom page like:

Oppose See comments on talk page.~~~~ (with a link to heading in the talk page)

This would allow extended conversation to go behind the main nom page and if all the suggestions are fixed then the reviewer can go back and strike the oppose, stating all suggestions have been met.

Or...

Something like they use over at WP:FAC:

Resolved comments by Gonzo_fan2007
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the use of the hide template personally, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts about the subject or any ideas. Thanks!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Either would be a good solution, I think. Though sometimes people get protective of their comments when you use the hide template. But, the good thing about the hide template, in my opinion, is that it kind of resets the FLC back to square one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha yeah, it probably wouldn't be good to do it to someone else's comments, maybe just ask them if their comments get really long. But I think it would be especially good for any comments that are resolved, because, as you said, it brings the nom back to square one and if people really want to read past comments, they are just one click away. I was hoping that maybe some of the regulars could start using it so that it could catch on here and persuade others to use it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If I have real problems with an FLC, I tell them to take it to peer review. If it can't be avoided, I try and add them to the talk page of the article. I use the hide template on FACs at the moment, so I think they are a good idea. Woody (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FLRC

I think it should be standard policy on a FLRC discussion page for the first line to explain who has been contacted about the nomination. It is difficult to tell whether the proper people know about an issue. I can see that List of Super Bowl champions had five editors who have twenty or more edits on the page with at least one falling in the last year. It would be great if at the top of each FLRC it said something like

Contacted: WP:NFL and The five leading editors: User:Zzyzx11 User:Psantora User:Smith03 User:KyuuA4 User:Phoenix2 --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the FAR way of doing things is helpful. We could probably just copy over their line about making sure you notify people. Woody (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? It's not out responsibility to make sure everyone sees it. And usually I'll leave a post at the WikiProject talk page. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, but it is common courtesy. Usually a note to the project talkpage and a note to the previous nominator should be enough. I just think we have to try and do all we reasonably can to ensure it maintains FL status. Woody (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_2&oldid=1190111462"