Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

More on bad column widths

Folks—I seem to be increasingly critical of what I see is the failure of nominators to optimise column width (see above for further discussion of this issue). I have a 61 cm screen normally at 1920 × 1200 px, but even at that size and res, squashing, wasted space, and thus ungainly visual appearance and a less satisfactory reading experience result. I really don't like to widen my WP windows, even though I can; the main reason is that I don't want to be faced with hugely wide lines of running text outside tables.

Take a look at this current nomination (the link is to what I saw when I reviewed and raised the issue of wasted horizontal space in Columns 2 and 3, leading to excessive vertical requirements in the "Notes" column, here.

I'd have thought attention to column widths were an issue the FLC process might crack down on to raise standards throughout the project. Tony (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I agree. In fact I made a comment not long after you in the same FLC. I think the table looks better now than when you made your initial appraisal, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, sir, even on my Safari browser, which, as Gary points out, yields a smaller window by default than Windows browsers. Looking to the future, I'd say that the size of monitors on at least desktop computers will creep up and past the current normal large size of 61 cm (24"); the larger the monitor, the less useful/convenient the Windows default of spreading windows to full screen-size, I think. Either way, FLC tables should be optimised for good use of space, methinks. Tony (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I have been trying to encourage the improvement of the aesthetics of tables during my reviews, and will continue to do so. Up until recently I've been using a 12" iBook with a restricted resolution so it's been quite important to me that the tables are formatted optimally. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; I presume nominators by and large know how to manipulate column widths ... I don't. Tony (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that's an entirely different problem! It's a black art but one one with which I'm slowly becoming more familiar... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we point them somewhere to learn? I'd like to know, myself. Tony (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a slog but Help:Table is probably a good starting point... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I could pass around my copy of Cascading Style Sheets: The Definitive Guide if anyone wants it :p But honestly, if you know how to manipulate Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), then you're much better off when working on, well, formatting ANYTHING online. Gary King (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting is optional

I'd like to remind nominators and reviewers that for some time now, the autoformatting of dates has not been required.

There are four advantages in not linking dates:

1. Inconsistent raw formatting within an article is obvious to editors and thus less likely to escape our attention. (The autoformatting mechanism conceals the inconsistencies from us, the very people who are most likely to enforce consistency, but the raw formats are displayed in bright blue to almost all readers, who are not registered and logged in. The rules for the choice of format in an article are in MOSNUM, here); they are easily summarised as (a) be consistent within an article; (b) take account of national ties to a topic; and (c) retain the existing format unless there's a good reason not to.
2. There are fewer bright-blue splotches in the text, which makes it slightly easier to read and improves its appearance.
3. The following issues concerning the dysfunctional aspects of the autoformatting mechanism do not arise:
   • piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function);
   • links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31);
   • links to date elements on disambiguation pages;
   • links to date elements in article and section headings; and
   • links to date elements in quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).
4. As a minor advantage, edit windows are slightly easier to read and edit.

It may be that WikiMedia might be persuaded to invest resources in revamping the mechanism to avoid or mitigate these problems, but this is unlikely to occur in the short to medium terms. Tony (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, software engineers bow to no one. Sorry, that's just the way it is! Hehehe... Gary King (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, autoformatting will just die the death it should have died several years ago, when people started realising how bad it is. Tony (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this means, Tony.. Could you explain it in layman's terms? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it'd be nice if we could identify dates without having it linked, so that they could still be autoformatted. I think this has been suggested before? Something like |2000-01-01| (since I like shorthand) would be nice, where the pipes identify the date, then it could autoformat. Gary King (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But persuading the WikiMedia developers to program this is like trying to push an ocean liner with a rowing boat. Besides, who cares if the other guy's date formatting appears? I haven't heard North Americans complain that the overwhelming majority of full dates on WP are in the British/Australian format (see after every signature?). Likewise, my very own daily newspaper in Sydney uses US date formatting. We all nicely cope with colour/color and ise/ize. If the developers were more cooperative, sure; but they're not, in which case, I see no problem in the first place. Tony (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Red links

Are we still opposing over too many red links? I thought this was opposed by Dweller and Tony at WT:WIAFL, where Dweller brought a succinct point that going on a mass-stub spree wasn't exactly constructive. Just curious whether this is still current practice (as I know it was with the old criteria). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if red links were allowed. Gary King (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They are allowed; just a miminal density. Is that what you mean? Tony (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Say a third or half a list is in red links? I thought the only problem raised was that it isn't aesthetically pleasing to have lots of red links. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the aesthetics is the issue. Looks messy, and if bright blue isn't bad enough for normal links, bright red is. I think that if a FLC has more than a minimal density of red links, nominators might take half an hour to write stubs on at least the most likely ones to be written up. Otherwise, it might be seen as wishful thinking, and jumping the gun on the notability decision in each case, too. Tony (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A "minimal proportion of red links" is part of the criteria. So, yes, we should oppose over too many red links.

I think aesthetics has little to do with it. If the developers of MediaWiki had chosen dark brown it still wouldn't make "red links" any more acceptable IMO. Start thinking of them as broken links. Imagine if Google returned a list of web pages that match your search subject, but half of them hadn't been written yet. How useless is that? Or if you went to the Simpson's web site and found a list of episodes but half the time you clicked on a link you got a 404? Would you think that was a quality piece of work, even if the list itself looked pretty?

Our featured lists are supposed to "exemplify our very best work". To my mind, that means that a reader of our wiki-linked encyclopaedia expects a list to be comprehensive, and link to related articles on the subject. An encyclopaedia has to look good and be useful. As a hypertext encyclopaedia, the quality of our links (internal and external) is as important an aspect of quality as the words we choose. Am I on my own in thinking this?

Take a recent example of SSSI lists. Some of the earlier featured lists had links to every SSSI article, which ranged in size from stub to GA. They were great. Recently, some got promoted with unlinked entries, or with entries to nearby towns. Later nominators then said "you accepted those, so why not accept these". Drip drip. The quality spirals down. Fortunately, the latest two SSSI lists I've seen now have links to SSSI articles. Yes, they are mostly stubs, but that's better than nothing and certainly better than being taken to some town five miles away. There's something to build on, which is less daunting than starting from scratch.

Colin°^Talk 14:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin, may I sign under your statement? Excellent comparisons you provided here.--Crzycheetah 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin, you're not on your own thinking this, and you expressed it much better than I could have. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

FLC FAC

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Lead lists vs featured_.28.3F.21.29_lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

I'm finding the review comments quite hard to follow, because the old formatting practice doesn't seem to be consistently followed and several styles are in use. FAC seems to be the same now. Can we return to:

• Each reviewer begins their comments with a bullet followed by the bold text Support, Oppose or Comment. This is in keeping with the current instructions for support/oppose.
• Any subsequent paragraphs should be indented. A bulleted list of issues from the same reviewer would be indented.

This way we can identify each reviewer's section. Thoughts? Colin°^Talk 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm as guilty as the next guy. I agree it would be easier if all FLCs were formatted uniformly. I don't mind when people refactor my comments this way - it doesn't change what I've said. If you find something to "correct" then "correct" it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you mean, Colin. Do you have an offending example to link to? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything I've contributed to in the past few months would be an example Matthew. I use the {{User}} template and indent with a semi-colon so I bold the whole line. Bad TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is it necessary to enforce uniformity in review formats? I'd have thought just insisting on a bold Support, Oppose or Comments would do the trick. Tony (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with Tony: I think this is over-regulation. It would be great to have everything nice and tidy, but let's spend our energies on making sure the articles are formatted perfectly. Drewcifer (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I can haz archiving?

Tony says the archiving isn't working correctly. Miszabot was correctly sticking things into Archive 2 up through May 28, but with a longer lag. I didn't screw with anything other than shortening the lag to 10 days. Can anyone see what's wrong? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are at least 3 sections with no additions in more than 3 days, and Archive 2 isn't near its limit of 250k; Miszabot should have worked. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason threads aren't being archived is because someone (:p) had a script that changed all of the timestamps to a different format. It was an accident. Those must be manually archived, which I will do now. After that, then auto-archiving should work as normal again. Gary King (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice; it's so nice to have the dishwashing done automatically and forget about it. These bots are like free servants about the house. Tony (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When does an list become an article

I had nominated Seinfeld (season 1) for featured list see here, but there seemed to be a disagreement over whether this was a list or an article, so I would like to ask here, if I want to nominate it again where should I do it? I don't want to nominate until I'm sure, so I'm asking here. --Gman124 ^talk 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, it looks like a list more than an article, as the chart comprises the majority of an article, which is an unofficial rule I like to go by. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but neither the season 1 or 2 lists are very large, so why not merge the two? There are existing FLs that cover multiple seasons, such as List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2), then it would definitely be a list because the table portion would be large than the lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering about the season treatment that the Naruto episodes had and made a comment here about it, and there was support for splitting the lists. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, it looks more like an article about the first season than a list of episodes. The information about the inception of the series, cast and crew, and initial reception seems to be the main thrust of the article. Details of the five episodes are an important component of the article, but the embedded list is not the main event. --Orlady (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would still argue that it's a list. If you look at similar articles for the other season, you would think that they're lists simply as a result of the number of episodes. The only reason production/reception is present is to make the article comprehensive, and it doesn't detract from the fact it's a list. Put it this way: you can cut the production/reception parts out and the article can still make sense, but if you cut the list part out, there's little to no point in the article. I do realize that for this specific example, the list is very small, but I would easily classify the remaining season pages as lists, and it would be inconsistent to call this an article and not a list. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You can forget about consistency because we already have a similar list listed as featured article: Smallville (season 1).--Crzycheetah 02:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the season pages I wrote and brought to FL status (Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) is one), the prose sections were Cast, Crew and Reception. Both the Cast and Crew sections could easily have been written in list format, as could the awards paragraph of Reception. Smallville is an exception because the majority of the article (from what I remember, I haven't looked recently) is mostly all about the way it was produced. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tedious repetition of title in opening sentences: STILL!

Is this still being allowed through? Matthewedwards has just complained about it at MOS talk. I recall that everyone agreed here a while ago that it's a silly habit and a great way to avoid engaging with readers at the opening. Please let's crack down on it ... Tony (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm picking it up (hopefully) in each of my reviews. But yes, it still seems to be a problem. We have to work to reverse the momentum and the "well it was okay for that list which was promoted a month ago so why not this list" mentality. It is happening, albeit slowly. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's being allowed through. Just that 80% of lists get brought here with it occurring. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm flagging it under the "not exactly brilliant, engaging prose" issue - I think that covers it, no need for a specific MOS caveat, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

These changes I've just made to MOSLEAD will help. Tony (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they will. At least if there's something objective to point to, editors will feel more inclined to follow the guide rather than huff about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers might consider pasting in this stock reason not to bore our readers with this:

• Please recast the opening sentence so that it does not mostly or fully repeat the title of the article. Please note the standard set by Criterion 2 of the featured list criteria, which states that the lead should have "an engaging lead section", and the Bold title and Establish context sections in the styleguide for lead sections. The opening is just where we need to capture readers' attention by contexualising the list, not irritating them with straight repetition of what they've just read.

Tony (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But, as another editor says here, we should begin with the subject of the article. We only repeat the title verbatim if it's simple; thus, the FA Blue Iguana does repeat and bold Blue Iguana; as an intermediate step, biographical articles often use the full name of the subject rather than the common form in the title. Here, I can see encouraging dropping List of, unless of course it's the most natural way to get into the subject, but surely it is often useful for the List of X to begin with saying what X is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it works, but often it's very awkward. MOSLEAD does give a way out, doesn't it? I mean, the rule about bolding was never totally strict.

"If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, or List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it need not be boldface"

I'd have thought "List of ..." was "simply descriptive". Above all, the rules should support interesting openings to lists, not the openings support a prefabricated mould designed largely for non-list articles. Tony (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

archived FLCs

I know that all archived FLCs have a message telling people not to edit the pages. Does that include fixing typos? I was looking through FLCs I commented on, and I realized that I misspelled something. Is that something that should be left alone on an archived page, or can I just fix it?--Dem393 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a typo, it should be fine. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a waste of time to me. Go work on a list and bring it here to be reviewed! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, old FLCs will hardly ever be seen again. They are filed away in a secret filing cabinet for future generations. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dem393, featured content pages are crying out for reviewers. Feel like joining in? Tony (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm really busy.--Dem393 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nominations are WAAAAAAY too long

I've been trying to view WP:FLC for a few minutes now, but I think that the page might be too long. Therefore, I can't review any lists. =( The page already loaded on my computer, but I have a hard time scrolling. Would it be possible to remove all of the removal candidates from this page? It really doesn't make sense to have removal candidates in this page anyway; we already have WP:FLRC for that.--Dem393 (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Gary King (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is just a huge backlog right now. Having the FLRC candidates at the bottom helps get them some much needed attention. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason we have a backlog is because some reviewers can't access the page! --Dem393 (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we give it a go, and try to remove the backlog as a top priority? Directors and Closers, what do you regard as a comfortable maximum size for the removal list? Tony (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean before it gets untranscluded from FLC? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthew: you've lost me. Can you explain in dummies' language? Tony (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

←PS Are six nominations really a backlog? I'd expect at least that many. And can we tweak the instructions a little? FAs normally can't be nominated for removal for three months after promotion. Why not specify here, too? I suggest also specifying that any major contributors to the article be contacted. Often, the original nominator is unavailable. Tony (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment seems to have caused a touch of confusion. When I said huge backlog, I was referring to the normal FLCs. There aren't that many FLRCs right now and I don't think removing them would speed things up that much. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we had our wires crossed somewhere. I've reviewed all but two that are in the backlog, I really should get around to returning to them for feedback and final opinion. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I've noticed that some of your oppose reasons seem to have been addressed, and a revisit for further feedback/opinion is always appreciated by the nominators. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope I got them all: I don't revisit unless I actually opposed. Tony (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Heck, at FAC, nominators ping opposing reviewers on their talk page (once only). I guess I'm not used to having to keep coming back and sifting through the entire list (which is long) to house-clean. Also, that guideline would encourage healthy communication between nominators and reviewers. I'd like to propose that this be added to the instructions (straight copy from FA instructions):

"Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed."

and

"If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider."

And, like FAC, can we stop nominators from striking out reviewers' comments? I'd like to be the judge of whether they're met. A simple "Done" after the comment is the usual thing, isn't it? Tony (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Tony (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nominators should never be striking out reviewers' comments. The same practices at FAC should apply here. IMO, go ahead and add them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all counts and I have no problem with adding that text to the instructions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Could we at least clear the backlog asap? Besides, the instructions imply that the directors don't have to wait for things to finish up. Nominations should be done within 10 days.--Dem393 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but most of the overdue noms don't even have one supporter yet, so there's not much I can do yet. There are a couple that I nominated that could be closed, but the Rambling Man would have to do those. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Right - "overdue" lists without a single support probably should be removed as there's no consensus to promote - the director should not be the lone voice in the community to promote. If you agree Scorpion, can you look at the lists which meet that citerion. I'll check on your overdue lists and promote shortly if I'm happy. Solution? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, the instructions do say (with my italics):

A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

• actionable objections have not been resolved; or
• consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. Tony (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It helps Tony. So backlog clearance time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally I'm not a fan of failing lists solely due to a lack of reviewers. Perhaps we should set a period of say 15-20 days and if there are no supporting/opposing comments in that period then the list is closed as no consensus. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps consider using the third bullet point judiciously. It's not ideal, too few reviews. Tony (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably stems from the on-going perception that we're FAC's poor cousin. FAC has many good reviewers and, thankfully, we're starting to get our own hard core - the important thing being that once reviewers have made "comment" they should be strongly encouraged to come back and re-review, providing either further comment, support or opposition to promotion. Maybe we ought to include something similar in the lead in...? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We possibly could start doing something similar to what Sandy does: she lists the number of comments from various reviewers at the end of every month (?) and gives out barnstars to the consistent contributors. More or less, it just engenders good will among the reviewers and encourages them to come back. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure... you can never have too many barnstars... :p Gary King (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a lot of work that takes someone away from reviewing. Possible. Tony (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please, can we have no more talk of poor country cousins? FLC should, and I believe will, close any gap with FAC over the next few months. Yes, we need to get serious about cultivating a sense of pride in being a reviewer, which Sandy is cleverly doing at FAC. But with the new directorate, there's absolutely no reason FLC can't be a prestigious place, and that bronze star just as good as an FAC bronze star. In terms of increasing our pool of reviewers, don't discount the idea that they can specialise in various criteria and combinations of criteria; that clearly happens at FAC. We need someone who'll do copyright, for instance. And more people for prose, please. And maybe the visual aspect. One thing going for FLC is that lists are usually much shorter and simpler in structure than FA nominations; that's a drawcard for attracting reviewers, since there's a sense of satisfaction in doing several in one go. Where to promote the idea? Where to attract talent? Anyone know of WikiProjects that are active and might have contributors who are interested in dropping in? Tony (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wikiproject lists --Dem393 (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New way of formatting Footnotes

Main page: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates § New_references_feature

If you've been using {{ref label}} for footnotes, then take a look at a new feature of <references />. You can now do:

<ref group="note">On this date, this happened</ref>

And then in your Footnotes section, have:

<references group="note" />

And it will number them for you, just like regular references. Also, more documentation here.

Gary King (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you get two ref 1s though? One for a regular <ref> tag, and a second for a <ref group="note"> tag? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it generates something along the lines of "I like pie.^{[1][note 1]}" Gary King (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I prefer "I like pie.^[1][A]" to be honest. Is this superceding {{ref label}}/{{note label}}, or simply an alternative? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an alternative. It's still under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_references_feature. I still think it's worth discussing; I agree that it's still not where we want it to be yet, but considering it's a fairly new feature... Gary King (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here, I prefer "I like pie.^[1][A]" to "I like pie.^{[1][note 1]}". I just can't match up "note 1" with anything done commonly in journalism or publishing. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, this extension has already been used on the recently promoted Featured List, List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein. There seem to be no glitches with code, although I understand the wish to replace the "note" prefix with letters. Willow (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The "note" prefix can be changed based on what is entered in the "group=" parameter. Gary King (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've known about this for a couple of months, since it was first installed, and it's somewhat useful but still falls short, as refs are not nestable. What this means is, I can't use a [ref] for a footnote, then have a [ref group=citations] for a citation within the footnote; you can't nest refs, even of different groups. What this means is, footnotes and citations must still be completely separate, which still requires a secondary ref form, like using {ref} tags. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested on my oppose of List of South American countries

I've opposed at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_South_American_countries#List_of_South_American_countries because I see it as a wasted opportunity to provide deeper combinations of data that will be a useful service to the Internet, while not being OR. Now, this may not apply to your regular lists of sports coaches and the like, but in my view, FLC nominators and reviewers might give more thought to the construction of interesting, clever combinations (i.e., scopes) to gain their bronze star, rather than—sorry Nishkid64—a mere surface compilation. Nishkid64 seems, prima facae, not to be dismissing this idea outright, nor my request for a much better lead.

At issue is poring over OECD- and CIA Factbook-type sources to identify optimal combinations of data, I think. Fine lists are partly based, I think, on what they don't include; their very act of filtering out data should be taken more seriously in how we view "our very best work". I'm not suggesting OR, but a more strategic selection, possibly expressed in two or three or four tables rather than the current single table, each thematised. It's part of the fun. Tony (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The information appears to be outgrowing the table. How about formatting it like so: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_South_American_countries#Example_of_an_entry Gary King (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but the disadvantage might be that it's harder to run your eyes along a line of one variable to compare. I'm exploring the idea of multiple tables, each themed. Unsure. Tony (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That could work, too. Like, a "Economy" section for GDP, poverty, etc., "Geography" for area, map, capital. Gary King (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FLC:List of elements by stability of isotopes

At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of elements by stability of isotopes I have been suggested to address the following issue here: the FLC contains to which I have added a legend which contains text with the same color from the image. I have been told that it does not comply with WP:ACCESS. The problem is that I don't know how to solve this issue withouth making the legent either clunky or less useful. Nergaal (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Use {{legend}}. Gary King (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plans

This discussion mentions multiple FLCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick fail

Hello community. I'm becoming more and more convinced that peer review is being bypassed for lists. User:Ruhrfisch and I (part-time), amongst a host of other great contributors, have been trying to ensure that all peer reviews have some significant comment within three days. I know in the past that lists were often overlooked, but hopefully now this won't happen. I'm considering the possibility of a "quick-fail" scenario where FLCs are removed on technicalities. Basically it works like this:

1. Editor posts list which hasn't gone through any kind of significant review (preferably PR).
2. An FLC director reviews it against WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:IMAGES, WP:COLOR, WP:LEAD etc, all of which should be followed for featured content.
3. Should it fail a "significant" number of these guidelines/policies, the FLC is failed, the nominator is directed to (a) the MOS etc, (b) the peer review process.

This way we won't have decent reviewers saying, time after time, "don't have bold links in the lead", "don't have a space between the citation and the full stop/period." etc etc. I'm very much aware that we mustn't WP:BITE but time after time reviewers are picking up completely basic failures and then getting so jaded that they don't return to supply a support/oppose. Just interested to see what you guys think. It probably doesn't help but the good article crew have a simple "quick fail" too... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm just concerned that now peer review would start to get filled with so many requests.--Dem393 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been going well for a while. FLC isn't a repository for would-be PRs...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions. I don't think that going through a review process should be an explicite pre-requisite for a FLC. There are some editors who have been through these processes often enough that sometimes these aren't neccessary. I do completely agree with the three-stage criteria though, it can be annoying, as I'm sure the ever present intial reviewers (Gary King etc) will attest to. (That would be a whole-hearted support for your suggestion). Regards. Woody (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a bad idea on paper, but in practice, are the directors prepared to review every single nom against all guidelines and policies before allowing it? It'd be alot of work. I agree that nominations should be taken to Peer review, although I don't necessarily think that each and every one needs it, such as Raime's skyscraper lists -- they're always almost perfect before they're brought here. Does FA have "quick fail" rules? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with #1. A lot of lists do not need to be peer reviewed and I WP:PR already has a huge backlog. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, I will not promote without checking, as a minimum, compliance with the areas of WP:MOS of which I'm aware. PR doesn't have such a huge backlog - 3 days wait before being assured of some significant comments? That's not really a backlog considering dozens of lists here have nothing besides "comments". I'm looking to find a compromise between using this process as a peer review tool and a featured content promotion candidacy. Perhaps #1 is too prescriptive. Perhaps it should be removed altogether and thus allow a director to make that decision without caveat, as long as due cause is noted during the fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

At FAC, we've worked against the unpleasant come-back from nominators whose work is bumped off earlier rather than later (even later), by saying it's no big deal, work on it and bring it back, and that when the page is groaning with nominations, it's kind of a privilege to remain there unless it's looking fixable in a reasonable time. Requires a minor cultural change. Please note that it's bad psychology for reviewers to be faced with a mountain of nominations—hard to make an impact without giving up two days of your life at once. Tony (talk)

I think that any case where a quick fail would be appropriate–where it's clear the list isn't even close to satisfying the criteria–would quickly be pointed out as such by reviewers. In other words, if it were up to me, I would leave things to be decided by a consensus among reviewers rather than the directors (no offense guys). But of course, TRM and Scoprion could chime in as well, in this case as reviewers. What I'm describing is something along the lines of the recent Supreme Courts cases FLC. It was clearly not up to par, and there was a flurry of opposes by a number of FLC regulars in a very short amount of time. That, in my mind, is how a quick-fail should be executed. Drewcifer (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess that's generally how one of the directors would be alerted to the fact that a newly listed list was far from the criteria. I'm happy with that. I know it happens all over Wikipedia, quick-fail at GAN, WP:NOTNOW at RFA etc, so I wondered if we needed to formalise it here or whether the community are okay with reading across the same principle to FLC without need to "type it up" as it were. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The key is that we want the nominator to feel that the person quick-failing is actually on the side of wanting the article to succeed rather than wanting to brush it aside for some other reason. If the person doing the quick-failing has a history of making the right call and being generally pro-nominator in other respects, I think it's a fantastic idea and will save a lot of time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominator gives thumbs-up to flushing autoformatting down the pan

Yesterday, I attempted to solve a massive overlinking issue with List_of_Final_Fantasy_compilation_albums, a new nomination, by removing all of the autoformatting. No one minds US date formatting, even if it requires a comma.

I was delighted that nominator PresN responded at the FLC page: "Well, can't say I'm sad to see the sea of blue leave. It's much easier to read now, thank you."

You may wish to compare the previous autoformatted version with the new, normal script version. Scrolling down side by side is best, but the difference is clear by comparing one after the other, too. Tony (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing nominations

Since we see that most nominations tend to belong to a narrow number of fields (Baseball, Football, discography, cricket...), I propose we sort nominations into these main subjects and a putting all other as Miscellaneous (either by sections or subpages). Therefore, any reviewer interested in any of these field would immediately find nominations he would be interested in, and others who feel lost and submerged by the huge number of baseball-, football-, discography-...related lists can easily find other nominations in the Misc section. Eklipse (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested before, but one of the primary reasons for opposing it was because then it would dissuade people from reviewing lists outside of their interests. Gary King (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And that is a key element of avoiding the classic "not seeing the wood for the trees". Before I made director I used to deliberately review articles about which I had no knowledge. Categorising will simply lead experts in the field reviewing their field and that could result in inaccessible lists for the non-expert which we must avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, your arguments just convinced me. Eklipse (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Length

I just fixed up List of Bangladeshi submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, but I have reservations about submitting a four-item list to WP:FLC. It certainly is comprehensive, and the list will only get bigger as Bangladesh submits more films (given the film industry there and the current climate at the Oscars, this list will get bigger yearly). That said, I'd like to get a perception over whether such a list would be acceptable here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the list will maintain the qualities of a Featured List whilst the newer submissions are being added, I'd see no real problem with it. But, I barely review anything here, so I'm probably not the best to give a response. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably also depends on what the verdict was on the list of head coaches for a team, which had about four coaches? I would consider that a similar situation as this one. Gary King (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

My idea - forget the criteria for a moment - consider the overriding principle - should a 'short' list be considered part of Wikipedia's 'finest work'? If the community think so then not a problem. Personally I'd feel a bit wary about categorising such a short list as our finest work. If it was an article it'd no doubt fall into the GA category (something along the lines of "a list which isn't really going to make featured for a particular reason but which still meets the defined criteria". Something I've often wondered is why lists should not be allowed to go through the GA process, or maybe we need a Good Lists process? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard one. I always thought it should be possible to make every list or article a featured one. With this list you could argue that it does not warrant a separate article but the info could be merged somewhere else. Garion96 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, you could have a list of one item which would meet the criteria but really would take the piss a bit if considered to be our finest work. It's impossible to give a quantitative "minimum of x" items within these lists, it wouldn't be fair to compare, say, the number of Bangladeshi entries for foreign film Oscar with, say, Mens Wimbledon Champions. So it's a case-by-case basis which needs the community to discuss. For reference, the GA page says "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality. " - perhaps "small" lists can become "Good lists" as I suggested earlier? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

But does this list passes the criteria of having a separate article? Same issue with the head coaches list and the presidents of Gabon list. If a topic does not warrant an own article, it can never be featured since it never should have been a separate article in the first place. Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Which criterion requires a "separate article" for each entry? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that you could argue that there should be no list List of Bangladeshi submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film because all the info in that list could be merged in another article. When there are more submissions the separate list could be made again and it could even be a featured list. Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(→) The problem is that where these four submissions be listed at? For the head coaches lists, it was easy, the list could be placed in the team's article. I just don't know what article is considered the main one for these submissions.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Perhaps an article rather than a list in this case is more suitable and then GA is allowable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Cinema of Bangladesh or Bengali cinema. Admittedly it is not such a clear case as with the other lists. I just don't like the idea that an article can exist but can never be featured without something happening in the future. In this case, more submissions. Garion96 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice choice! There can be a new section added at Cinema of Bangladesh to list these four submissions.--Crzycheetah 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed a month or so ago at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Nominations of lists with small scopes. I thought 10 was the "minimum", otherwise I'd agree that the content should be merged into a different article. A Good list assessment band might be good for things like this, and I've often wondered why there isn't a Good List class already. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing that discussion say that 10 is really an arbitrary "minimum" and really, it's up to consensus here. I don't have a problem with not sending the Bangladeshi submission list, but I currently have List of Macedonian submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, which has six submissions. Notably, I submitted List of FLCL episodes, a six-item list, to FLC a while ago and got it to pass. I don't have a problem with a minimum threshold, but I have to know approximately where one exists. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 10 is the minimum threshold, but there are some exceptions for the less than 10 item lists. Those exceptions mostly made where you have a lot of information about each item. For example, the FLCL list provides episode summaries and the lead is pretty long, so I see how this list can be considered featured even with less than 10 items. As for the submissions list, you only have the table with 4 rows and a one paragraph lead, so I don't think an exception can be made here.--Crzycheetah 03:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's for the Bangladeshi submission list. My immediate question is the Macedonian submission list that is currently at FLC. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed the discussion where 10 was declared the minimum (not surprised - I can be very dozy). Is there any mileage in discussing the creation of a Good List class here to cater for these borderline lists? I think if there's a general consensus that a list is "too short" (and "too short" can be different from subject matter to subject matter) but still meets all the FLC criteria, it should go up for "Good list". It's happened a few times recently and it seems a shame that decent lists which can't (currently) be long enough to really satisfy the "Wikipedia's finest work" but still satisfy the FLC criteria fall through the cracks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good lists

Since this is getting slightly off-track, I'll make a section break here. Personally, I think the gap between lists that can become FLs and lists that are so short that they should simply be part of a larger article is not very large, and there won't be that many "good lists" that can't become FLs. That and we're adding another layer to the process that really isn't that necessary. When I fix a list, I expect to go to FLC with it. When I fix an article, I expect to go to GAN, maybe PR, and then to FAC. The gap between a GA and a FA is quite large and makes the process work. As I've said, the gap is so small that I don't think it's worth it. The list is FL-quality or it isn't. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sounds fair. So in that case I guess it's all down to subjectivity and the way the community feels about any given "short" list. As long as people are prepared to !vote according to their beliefs and not just sit on the fence saying "Hmm, this could be FL but it's a little short, don't you think?"... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On that note, can I get a general idea of whether List of Macedonian submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film (which is currently at FLC) can be an FL? If it is, then I'd submit List of Indonesian submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film as well. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that if the community decided on ten as a minimum then these lists probably wouldn't make it through. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My main issue is that ten was a bit of an arbitrary minimum that was admitted in past discussions, and I would like to know how much leniency the community has in terms of how long these lists can be. Six, seven entries? My main issue is a tangible number to operate around, so I know what to work on if I'm looking into making some lists into FLs. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have already said, lists with less than 10 items may become featured if they have sufficient amount of content, or prose. Now, maybe we can look at the page size to decide whether a list has sufficient amount of prose. The Macedonian list looks very short with insufficient amount of prose and insufficient number of items, so I'll say that it can't be considered for a FL.--Crzycheetah 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to know where the line has been set. TRM, could you fail the Macedonian submission list FLC? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A proposed change in the guideline on overlinking in tables

Dear colleagues

At WP:CONTEXT, which sets out how linking should be done only in the right context, someone has proposed that the guideline explicitly accommodate the complete linking of all items in lists.

I've been wondering about this in any case from my experience reviewing here. Looks OK when all items are linked, but less visually appealing when it's a patchwork of linked and non-linked. Unsure.

I've told them to hold off until people here consider it—reviewers and especially directors and delegates.

The discussion is here. Tony (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with the proposed change, I think if we were to implement it, we would have to make a grandfather clause stating that lists promoted before the change are encouraged to conform to this guideline, but are not required to use this format. This change will affect most FLs, and I would hate to see a bunch of WP:FLRC's stating "doesn't conform to WP:CONTENT." But like I said earlier, I would endorse this change for future FLs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's such a good idea for some things. A list of television episodes may not have an article for every episode, writer or director. If it was in the guideline that every entry was linked, there may be a hell of a lot of redlinks for articles that just wouldn't (or shouldn't) be created for notability issues. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog notice

Hi all. A couple of questions.

1. Does anyone actually use the backlog notice to see which lists need reviewing?
2. Would anyone object to me adding lists that haven't gone over ten days but which are close and still need reviewing to the backlog notice?

I'd like to take advantage of the fact that we're quite clear on the backlog, so I want to tempt people into reviewing lists which aren't overdue... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I always added and still do add lists that aren't at the 10 day threshold, although I have never added a list that hasn't gone at least 8-9 days. I would totally be fine with you or Scorpion adding noms that need reviewing, but I would be opposed to letting anyone add lists that aren't 10 days or older. Oh, I have to say that it seems this whole FL Director thing has worked out perfect, lists seem to be getting reviewed better and quicker, and the backlog is the smallest it has ever consistently been! Good work TRM and Scorpion! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if TRM or Scorpion adds noms that haven't reached the ten-day mark but need reviewing, then that's fine. If everyone is allowed to do it, then it defeats the purpose of the box. And yeah, they have been doing quite a good job, and the backlog that was originally there has largely gone away (although I'm getting back in my groove now with FLs :p). Also, could people comment above concerning whether one of my current FLCs is long enough? If it isn't, I might as well withdraw the nomination. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll rephrase the backlog notice a touch and, being bold, add a couple of lists which aren't overdue but will soon become overdue. Cheers for the support guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do sometimes use it, and otherwise tend to go to the bottom of the list anyway. I know this defeats the goal of providing early feedback so nominations can be improved in a more timely manner during the process .... can't win either way. Tony (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think TRM is doing a fantastic job as director. Frankly, he's already archived one or two of my nominations within 10 days but I wouldn't have it any other way :) I agree that nominations should only be listed when they are ready; apparently mine were not :| So I accept that :) Gary King (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments but no !votes

Hey everyone. More and more these days, I'm seeing plenty of (peer review) comments at FLC which, no doubt, are improving their quality. However, the ten-day limit is expiring on a number of lists which have not one single support or oppose !vote. This is a shame because although we ditched the four-support minimum, I'm reticent to promote a list without a single community support. Any suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Contact the nominators to have them ask the reviewers to revisit the nomination and to support or oppose (the nominators should be doing this anyway). If a sufficient period passes without this happening, then fail the nomination and allow the nominator to renominate without prejudice. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm doing that but it's getting really tedious! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write instructions into the "Supporting and opposing" section on the top of the page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking a page out of the RFA book, maybe a Support and Oppose section could exist in each FLC? Of course, this is WP:NOTAVOTE, but considering that Rambling Man is doing an awesome job keeping the backlog to 10 days, I think that it would help spur people to vote... maybe. At the very least, FAC can no longer be used as an example because the backlog here is kicking their butt! To Sephiroth, almost no one reads those instructions :) Gary King (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the addition of support/oppose sections turns any nomination into a vote and encourages pile-on supports (or opposes) more than anything, which we don't want. And yeah, no one reads the instructions, but if TRM fails a nomination and the nominator never asked the reviewers to revisit, then he can point to the instructions and say, "Hey, not my fault that you didn't read them." Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah the 'ol WP:NOTMYFAULT :) Most people just need to be convinced to get off the fence and give a support or oppose. Usually, I think what happens, at least for me, is that I will place comments but not support or oppose because I didn't review the article enough. Even if I did, maybe I'm worried that I missed something and so I don't support. Probably happens to others too. Gary King (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think my major concern is the change in approach (ie removal of 4 support = promotion and a considerable hike in quality control) has resulted in a lot of editors sitting on the fence. I have no problem with that, and will (un)happily archive these "non-voted for" lists. However, I'd prefer to see a general direction from the community. I'd rather not have to say "not my fault", I'd rather we had a process which encouraged not only comment but definitive opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if a reviewer directly says "Support." I believe if a reviewer has given a full review to the list, and each point has been addressed by the nominator, then why should we punish the nominator? In my opinion, if a reviewer has no other points to bring up that need to be addressed, than this is an inherent support. The key here is not the amount of support a list has been given by the community, it is the quality of the review given. Just as the director can archive a list has not been properly and thoroughly reviewed in the time frame even if it does have the proper amount of "supports," a director should be able to promote a list that s/he feels has been properly reviewed and meets the criteria, even if it does not have the proper amount of "support." In summation, TRM, I trust you and Scorpion will not promote a list that doesn't meet the criteria even if it has a bunch of supports, so I also trust you guys to promote a list that you feel meets the criteria and has been properly reviewed, but doesn't have a lot of supports. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions make it quite clear that the addressing of critical comments is more important than declarations of Support. This is the same in the FAC instructions; good thing, too. Tony (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So far this month...

It's about halfway through July and we've just hit the same number of promoted lists as for the whole of the previous month - 46. This means we're heading for a record month (March 2008 saw a record 65 promotions) - especially with the current nomination rate of around four or five per day. Nominators, keep up the good work, reviewers, keep up the great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the good work yourself! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mad props to TRM. I don't know if he's working overtime because Scorpion is gone, or if Scorpion were here, would things be going twice as fast? Who knows?! Gary King (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsure why the number is something to be joyous about. I was onto Raul about the same thing at FAC. The fewer the better, IMV, if that's what it takes to keep up the standards. Is anyone cracking down on the quality of the writing? Tony (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think TRM's main point was that we are promoting more and more lists, yet we have obviously increased the standards and the activity level of reviewers. Tony I don't know if you ever reviewed lists here back at the end of 2007/start of 2008, but it was very common for lists to get nominated and have no comments whatsoever for the first 4-5 days, and it was very common for lists to be nominated and get little to no substantial comments by reviewers. Today, I see no new nominations going longer then 12-18 hours without a comments, and I see substantial reviews and a higher overall activity level. I have also seen the quality of the lists soar. You are correct that the number isn't that important, until you qualify that number with the increase in quality we have experienced this past month. I echo TRM's comments, good work nominators, and great work reviewers. Keep it up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My main points were (a) it's good to get a grip on the backlog, so it's not so daunting for reviewers, (b) it's good that the level of interest in FLC from the wider community has increased considerably over the past few months and (c) yes, I believe the quality of the promoted lists now exceeds the quality before the shake-up. It's all heading in the right general direction. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Limiting nominations

Hello all. I was wondering what the community thoughts were on limiting the number of concurrent nominations at WP:FLC. While most of our nominators are conscientious and attend to comments raised, we do have numbers of similar nominations, all of which suffer the same issues which becomes a bit tiresome for reviewers who have to keep pointing this out. Right now we have 46 nominations, over a third of them (19) come from just three editors, Gary King (9), Annonymous24 (7) and Cannibaloki (3). I don't want to put people off nominating lists but over at WP:FAC, they generally disallow concurrent nominations altogether, the instructions include "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I think that this statement could (should?) equally apply to WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I hesitate to compare FLC to FAC in this respect, since dealing with comments and suggestions at an FLC is a much simpler process than FAC, I think this is a good idea nonetheless. Chiefly, it would emphasize a "quality over quantity" approach, and assure against hastily made noms. This is also helpful to avoid the same problems across multiple noms (for instance in Gary King's list of awards noms, the left-alignment of the year column bothers me across the board), but it is ultimately an awkward (and annoying) task to make the comments separately. On the downside, many nominators who frequently nominate multiple lists simultaneously often do a good job regardless, in particular Gary King, and a step like this might only serve to slow down such prolific contributions. So, here's what I propose as an alternative to the "one at a time" rule: "one type at a time". Since unlike articles, lists are much easier to pigeon-hole into set types (discographies, tallest buildings, awards, etc, etc), we could limit nominators to one type of nomination at a time, while still allowing multiple noms if they are different. That way it would stil allow the more prolific nominators to do their thing, but also keep things a bit more manageable. AND, it might have the added benefit of stretching reviewers a little less thin across FLCs. Drewcifer (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No we shouldn't have a number. Gary's lists are fine. He never brings a list to WP:FLC that isn't close, nor does he leave comments unresolved. If he wants to nominate more lists, he is fine to do so as long as he promptly addresses the comments on each nom. On the other hand, there are/is (a) certain user(s) who has nominated a few lists that are no where close to the level needed; I would remedy this by ensuring that our Directors are promptly archiving lists that reviewers have noted as not meeting the guidelines needed to be a WP:FLC and then pointing them to WP:PR. No need to limit featured content. (I do ask nominators to use common sense in the number of lists added here at one time for the reviewers sake) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Gary is a poor nominator, but what does concern me is when similar errors are propogated across multiple nominations. Because most lists aren't original (i.e. they're often based on previous FLs: discographies, head coaches, film awards etc) problems on the original FLs can be copied again and again - I've seen a template (I think it was at Wikiproject NFL) which claimed to be the de facto standard for featured season lists. It was full of MOS breaches which would arrive here and each time need to be fixed. So all I'm trying to do is avoid wasting reviewers time fixing the same problem on multiple nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see merit in both sides. I'd hate Gary to be frustrated at a legal cap on his good work, and it seems cumbersome to impose a rule that a second FLC may be entered only after the first has been in the list for 10 days. Or is it? Unsure. It was no big deal to impose that rule at FAC because FACs are usually much bigger and more elaborate. People don't churn 'em out. Tony (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that means we'll maintain the status quo. Not a big deal, I just get bored of repeating my comments. I'll get over it! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you may withdraw my two discographies of the list of candidates, if possible - no problem. I apologize for my lack of sense and limit, but I just really thought that the discographies nominated by being ready to be a FL. Regards, Cannibaloki 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Judy Garland biographies

Apologies if this is out of place, but a peer reviewer suggested that I ask here. I am interested in promoting List of Judy Garland biographies to FL status and the reviewer suggested that each book requires a source. I would have thought that, like films, books are self-referential and don't require an additional source. The reviewer was unable to locate an equivalent list so I am hoping to get some guidance on how to proceed. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a book is a biography of Judy Garland doesn't need to be sourced, IMO (in most cases anyway), but the author, title, date and publisher do. You presumably found this info somewhere, and that location should be cited. Ideally, it might be best to cite the publisher's website, if the appropriate information is there. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs are extremely helpful for books. Gary King (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• For the majority of them I found the information by opening the books because I own them. If I add the ISBN for each book is that sufficient sourcing? Otto4711 (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's sufficient, but at the very least, add the ISBNs because that's the most crucial part of any book in my opinion since it's a unique identifier. Gary King (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes with this project -- it's nice to see new FLCs that aren't cookie-cutter copies of existing FLs.

Regarding your question, I agree with Gary King. You definitely should add ISBN numbers to the table. I don't see a need to cite a source for the list of books; not all featured lists are based on someone else's list. However, if there are books or articles on the subject of "books about Judy Garland", "films about Judy Garland", etc., the list would be improved by including them as sources. Also, facts like "Won two Emmy awards and nominated for three more" should be sourced.

(BTW, I think the list of films should be in the form of a table.) --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the feedback, it is much appreciated, but I'm sorry, what list of films are you referring to that isn't in table format? Otto4711 (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article is about film biographies of Garland, but tables are provided only for "print," "video", and "stage." --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh. the "Video" table encompasses all visual representations regardless of medium. I'll rename it to "Film and video" for clarity. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote of no confidence in a director

So, recently a couple of editors have made it clear they don't necessarily agree with my judgement in list promotion. One argument is that lists don't have two supports. Or even one. I thought that when FL directors were elected, it was down to them to make a judgement, based on the criteria, as to whether a list should be promoted. Sure, I felt uncomfortable promoting a list without support votes but then again, if all issues were dealt with and I reviewed the list and was satisfied, per the role of a FL director, then why not?

Anyway I think we're heading back to scratch (ie before the criteria rejig and introduction of directors) and I feel that I may be undermining the community (or rather, I've been told that my recent promotions/archives have been "for the sake of reducing the backlog"). Right now we have something like 51 list candidates and a mandated 10-day limit. Every day, on average, five lists are added and allowing an extra five to 10 days for lists (which should have been peer-reviewed) to be fixed would mean a permanent backlog of 15 to 20 lists. I'm not prepared to put up with that. I would rather go back to being a plain and simple reviewer if my decisions as FL director are questionable. I don't wish to make this a major issue - I want the process to work. So, right now, I seek the opinion of the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your decision is basically unimpeachable. The counterweight is the ability to bring the article to FLRC, but the list usually has a 2-3 week grace period before it can be brought to FLRC (otherwise we get people gaming the system). If some editors are unsatisfied with the list, then direct them to the article's talk page and have them get in contact with the nominator to address the issues presented. As for your closes, always use your best judgment, and don't be afraid to fail a candidate that you feel has not received enough reviews, and allow them to restart the nomination without prejudice. Also, I've noticed on your talk page that people are clamoring for you to close nominations - that is a big no no. IMO, I would put a message on top of your talk page stating that people should explicitly not do that. As for me, I don't think you're doing a bad job (quite the contrary). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would hesitate to agree that my decision is "unimpeachable" but I appreciate the (thinly veiled!) compliment. I've worked hard to tell reviewers that I'm not into supporting/opposing and I will close lists when I'm good and ready. But seriously, if there's a consensus that I'm rushing lists through, I'd like to hear it. When I started we had a backlog of 10–15 lists and only two or three lists being nominated. Until I refrained from promoting recently, we had a backlog of one or two lists and four or five lists being nominated every day. Seemed better that way. I don't want FLC to be the same as PR. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was one of the users that brought it up, and I was somewhat convinced by Rambling Man's comments on my talk page. I no longer have an issue with promoting with few/no support, and it does eliminate the backlog. I think you've been doing a great job and I hope in the end you decide not to resign. As for Sephiroth's comments about requests for closure, I agree. I usually ignore those requests. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am listing the types of nominations that I feel you should never promote. You should not promote a list where...

1. You are the nominator
2. The 10-day period hasn't passed yet
3. No or one person reviewed (this happens rarely)
4. Active discussion is going on

You may archive a list where you feel that the list needs a lot of work. The 10-day period can be ignored when you archive a list. As for the number of supports, I really don't care whether there are 1, 2, or no supports as long as there are comments from two or more users.--Crzycheetah 23:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If The Rambling Man isn't going to be FL director, how would Scorpion comment/promote/archive all those candidates? And will anyone take his spot? -- K. Annoyomous24 00:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking way ahead! There's no if. The Rambling Man was, is and will be our FL director! --Crzycheetah 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here (and other commitments are calling...) so I may not be familiar with the customs here. I prefer the FAC system that requires not only an avoidance of objections, but requirement for support (at least 2) and where the FA director does not promote when he/she feels the article is ready, but only interprets community consensus. I think FLC is focusing more quantity of FLs than quality. Several nominators will not budge when comments are written but will respond immediately to objections. It seems like the system is encouraging people to just get the bronze star, and not building better content. This is resulting in cookie-cutter lists (consistency is good) with introductions that are just thrown together (not demonstrating a command of the subject). I suspect the 10-day limit combined with willingness to promote without support (absence of an object doesn't mean I'm comfortable supporting) or substantive reviews creates an environment welcoming of multiple half-baked articles but unwelcoming of peer review guidance. The cookie-cutter nature of some topics doesn't help (creates inconsistencies over time). Your worth, TRM, is demonstrated in dealing the hand you are dealt and living up to the standards you set yourself. Short of a prolonged unexplained absence or an open election, I seriously doubt you will ever be asked to step down. I can only ask whether you are fulfilling your vision for the process. And if not, what do you need us to do? By the way, Sephiroth, I don't buy the assertion that a removal process counterbalances a flawed promotion process - they require very different motivations to drive them. --maclean 03:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that FAC has a requirement of "at least 2 supports"?

Cheetah, Annoy thinks that TRM is the only director; for those who don't know, Scorpion is also a director but was away for a few weeks so that's why TRM has been doing the promoting lately. Anyways, I like how it is now, personally. No complaints! If I come up with some, you'll be sure to hear from me, though. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did say how would Scorpion comment/promote/archive all those candidates, so it's safe to assume that he knows SCorpion is our director, as well.--Crzycheetah 05:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah Gary King (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Maclean) There is no "2 support" requirement as far as I can see it at FAC (unless I'm missing something), nor is there one here. FLC does encourage an environment of cookie-cutter lists simply because so many lists are so similar and in a very consistent format, but it doesn't have the overly drastic toll on quality that you're pointing towards. Consistency is preferable over varying formats (in the absence of a compelling reason to ignore the accepted format). And yes, I know FLRC is not a perfect counterweight to a FL director, but it is the only source of addressing quality control in this regard. It's something rather than nothing, and there are two different directors for the FLRC process to ensure quality there. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I don't want to highjack this thread so I'll just say that I agree with you, Sephiroth, on the cookie-cutter lists (it was not my intention to say that they necessarily lead to loss of quality, unless a half-baked effort is accepted and repeated 26 times over...I want to say more but I'll save it for later) and on the 2 supports at FAC, I meant there is "requirement for support" but the bracketed info was not articulated well...and unless you can find an example of an FA that passed with one or no supports I'd say the "at least 2" is an unwritten tradition. --maclean 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ TRM) Hell no, you are not compromising the process. If anything you and Scorpion have made this place one of the most productive areas on Wikipedia, and you did an awesome job while Scorpion was gone. As long as we aren't closing nominations where comments have been recently posted, things are amazing here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ Maclean) This is a consensus driven process where we come together to discuss a list. We want to discourage pure Supports or Opposes. If you want some supports, then by golly I'll go add a support to each list, and then we can start discussing the lists. I want reviews, substantial reviews. And that is what we are getting. No offense, but your comments come across as poorly stated generalizations that have little to no credence here. Yes we have a lot of the same lists, and yes people will create lists to get the star, but is this bad. I don't care why someone wants to make featured content, for all I care they are getting paid by someone to do it. The main point is that they are improving the encyclopedia. And at the very least, the quality of lists promoted have increased ten-fold; I have actually had to go back to my earlier FLs and bring them up to the standard we have now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(@ everyone else) Reviewers, please place any noms you have reviewed on your watchlist. Make it very clear where you stand on the list. Nominators, do not hesitate to ask reviewers to reassess the list after you have addressed concerns. Directors, be bold. Everyone: realize that we are in no rush to finish the encyclopedia, it is a working project; waiting a little while to make a list featured will not hurt anyone. We want to make quality content, let's focus on that. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/J._Walter_Kennedy_Citizenship_Award

For some reason, I can't seem to see Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/J._Walter_Kennedy_Citizenship_Award on the WP:FLC page. -- K. Annoyomous24 07:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit somehow blanked the page. I would re-add whatever you meant to add. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been happening recently, where an edit would be made that would actually blank the page. Check WP:VPT. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Posting system

I am a bit unfamiliar with the Featured List criteria and nominating procedure, so I am hoping a post here will help me clear up my questions. I have been working on the article Posting system for awhile now and have been curious to know what is needed to make it featured. The problem is that the article is about half article/half list. Would I be able to pursue Featured List status with this particular article or no? And if so, could someone provide a bit of guidance for me? Thanks --Torsodog^Talk 21:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed the article. I don't know much of anything about the subject (so I may be misjudging things), but I thought that the article seemed like a better candidate for a featured article than a featured list. The main focus of the article seems to be on the system (which seems complex) and the history of its use. Based on my superficial skim, it looks like a good candidate for FA. --Orlady (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks more like an article with a list rather than a list with lots of prose. FAC would be the proper venue. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like a FAC candidate. I also noticed it was a GA -- if it was considered a list, it wouldn't be legible for GA. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)