This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The lists of alumni of universities seem to list people first by what they are notable for, such as Nobel laureates, ambassadors, governors, etc. Then within each group they vary as to whether they list them in alpha order by last name or grad year. I just want to verify either way is acceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I prefer alphabetically order, but I would say that both methods are acceptable. -- Scorpion0422 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Tks. Most others and the source lists too are in grad order, so we went with that. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
FLC broken?
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I just noticed that the FLC was broken for me and that all the transclusions were not being displayed. Only the first 28 are shown for me (p.s. I didn't stop my browser and have purged cache), but the full TOC is there. Is anyone else having this problem? Could it be caused by the page being to large? Rambo's Revenge(talk) 11:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Someone had forgotten to add {{collapsebottom}} to their hide template in the Black Eyed Peas discography FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I probably should have been able to find that myself. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge(talk) 14:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on Criteria 6
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It would be great if more people could put the criteria page on watch so we can have better discussions there. On a related note, it might not hurt to redirect the talk pages for WP:FL and WP:WIAFL here so it can act as a centralized discussion area. Looking through the archives, I notice a lot of attempted discussions that died out because not a lot of users watch those pages. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that actually, it would be better to redirect it here.--TRUCO 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was planning on bringing this article up to Featured List status, as that would allow me to possibly create a Featured Topic for Jericho seasons. (List of episodes, season 1, peer reviewed season 2). This article currently includes "Morse Code" information, however, which is basically uncitable (I looked for about 45 minutes today). At the beginning of each episode, there are a series of dots and dashes that come up with the intertitle that give a hidden morse code message. Any half-decent radio user would be able to figure them out. I was just wondering what I should do about these. I am unsure if they count as Original Research as they currently stand, or if it is just something that could be sourced to the episode itself. If it is the former, I would have to take out the information, and I saw several sites that used us to find this information.
So, what do you think? Is deciphering (blatant) Morse Code original research or not? NuclearWarfare(Talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Aww, darn. Well, there goes that idea. I'm too lazy to get a whole Jericho topic done, but thanks for telling me in any case. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Air dates
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have found a source for List of Popotan episodes that lists the first and last original air dates and lists the day of the week they were shows. I wanted to know if I could use that for a source for all of the dates within the time period (which the number for the days listed, which is thursday matches exactly the number of episodes for the time period). I do not believe that would constitue original research since one can easily check a calander to see when each Thursday falls. Dabomb87 agrees, but suggested I confrim it here.じんない 00:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Just look at the article. Doesn't it look like a article good enough to even become a featured article (without the "List of")? Thoughts? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering how there is no main article called Poker hand, its best to move it to Poker hands.--TRUCO 03:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But whatever the name is, this is still a list imo.—Chris!ct 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Chris. I'm not sure Featured status is transferable from lists to articles anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just exaggerating, but I still believe that the article looks more like an article IMO. I also definitely think that this article can actually achieve good article status. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The name doesn't take away from being a list, many lists don't have the "List of" in their name. I also believe this is a list more than an article.--TRUCO 03:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just my $0.02, but that page definitely appears to be more a list an article. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 03:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is another problem about the community 10-item restriction for FLs. Please comment on your views and thoughts about this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The unwritten rule is not policy or guideline by any stretch. Since no-hitters are rare, and the tenth item might not exist for years, I think we can ignore the rules. The article is still of high quality, and in the end, a tenth item wouldn't be adding much more info anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
More eyes needed at a FL? question
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am not certain I followed procedure properly with re-nominating the above list for FL status. My previous attempt was unsuccessful, but I have since improve the article, and I re-nominated the list here. Hopefully this is the proper procedure, or at least the trail is easy to follow and correct. Thanks so much! --Another Believer(Talk) 05:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You forgot to transclude the FLC onto the FLC page. I did it for you, so everything should be good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, right! Thank you so much. --Another Believer(Talk) 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wrapping around preload
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I mentioned this previously but I am not convinced it has been resolved. I have noticed in many FLCs the text does not wrap around the toolbox properly, and text seems to flow behind it. Additionally, I just noticed strange wrapping of the nominators rationale around the automatically found previous FLC attempt. Surely I am not the only one seeing these things. Am I? Rambo's Revenge(talk) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a screenshot? I am not seeing the problem. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wrapping around the preload template as I (Rambo's Revenge) see itThere, sorry it took a while, I have no good graphics program. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So let's get to work cleaning up or notifying people about these. Please remember to update the list and add a {{done}} tag to one you've finished. -- Scorpion0422 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I found out why it's worse. Any article that uses the {{as of}} template with a year other than 2009 is now automatically included in the "Articles containing potentially dated statements from [insert year]" category. So there are 25 of those, and 54-25=29. Orphaned articles are of no concern, so 54-25-4=25. So we actually did a little better this time (there were no articles in either of those categories in the old listing). -- Scorpion0422 20:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Reviews needed
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog is pretty big, but many have only received comments by one or two reviewers, and cannot be closed yet. Please, if you have the time, take a look at the following nominations and lists and provide reviews. Thank you.
Additionally, if you have left comments at nominations, please revisit to check if they have been resolved and update your opposes/comments/supports where necessary.
Currently, the template toolbox is transcluded within noinclude tags. This is mainly to prevent the load-time from being too large. To get them to show up on FLC you would need to remove the noinclude tags from around the toolbox. Woody (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Which FLC? I see them. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
All FLCs. I don't mean individual FLC pages, only when they're transcluded here at FLC. I know we don't need the toolbox, but the previous nomination pages are handy. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
As they are currently part of the toolbox, the way it is currently set up you can't have them showing up at the FLC page. You would need to remove it from the toolbox and place it as part of the standard pre-load, probably in another template. Woody (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Coordinators' working group
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepTalk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A discussion on the assesment scale is currently taking place at.[1]. It would be nice to have someone from this place to comment on some of the technical aspects.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Tools
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I noticed that FAC removed the readability checker tool from their toolbox, should we reflect those changes?--₮RUCӨ 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Dispenser removed it from there because he doesn't really maintain it and isn't that accurate. I suppose we could remove it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Remove it. It is even less helpful for lists compared to articles anyway. I was going to be bold but it needs an admin to make the change. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 15:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion
WP:FAC says: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Should FLC have the same kind of regulation? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Especially in cases where the lists are very similar, since people would be vetting two lists for identical problems. --Golbez (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
FLC is generally less draining for reviewers than FAC. I don't mind nominators having multiple nominations; two or three is the logical limit. Fifteen open nominations from one editor is a no-no (yes, that did happen at one point). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Gary? Anyway I personally feel that 2 or 3 is acceptable if they are not in the same topic. Within a topic, problems on one list may often arise on another list in the topic, so I don't really like it when people submit multiple noms from the same topic at once. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 13:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There are certain types of lists that have been at FLC so much that the newer ones don't have much to change. For example, the sports head coach lists or the musicians award lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But I don't consider those to be within a topic, as someone is unlikely to make a topic of all discogs or all musician awards. I was thinking, for example, not having multiple season pages of a TV show at once or, to take an already featured topic of lists, not nominating all the Nobel laureates lists at once. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 13:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Generally, I don't care if people have multiple noms, I do it myself all the time. That being said, one should try to stagger their nominations by a few days and not nominate too many of the same type. Also in cases where a new type of list is being presented, one should wait until it closes and all of the kinks are worked out before nominating any similar types. -- Scorpion0422 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Barring Gary riling me up—which led to a combined twenty-six nominations from both of us at one time—I don't think this will be a problem. So long as the nominations are staggered and the lists have been at FLC before, it's not that big of a deal. The only people who are going to bring multiple nominations are people familiar with the process and their lists tend to not have that many problems that need addressing during the FLC, so reviewer exhaustion isn't that much of a problem here. As Dabomb notes above, that FAC rule is there because FAC tends to be a more exhaustive process, especially on the reviewers. — sephiroth bcr(converse) 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it was twenty-eight ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Any limit on the number of noms is stifling to the production of quality content and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia; which is the creation of quality content. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you think the FAC limit is stifling production of quality content? Rambo's Revenge(talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the purpose of such a limit? Use common sense: don't nom over 9,000 lists at a time, but there's nothing wrong with two or three. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 03:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, then perhaps the limit should be 3.じんない 05:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So what's going on here? Are we going to continue operating on the principle of common sense, or are we going to implement a concrete limit? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The WikiCup is already going on right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
But the FLC contest has a different form than the WikiCup. Also, there was a WikiCup last year, and there also was an FLC contest last year. I was hoping to get more replies from former contestants. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but it hasn't been long since the last FLC contest. I think Matthew's intent is it for to be in September again. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
FLCon III: The Quest to Beat the Rest will be coming in the spring. Possibly in late April/May so as not to collide with exam season. I believe I am going to change the formula of it, because I'm not sure the concept of sending veterans to work on articles in unfamiliar areas has worked so well. -- Scorpion0422 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Finally, a better name. What formula do you plan on using? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I really haven't decided yet, so I'm open to suggestions. I like the 3 lists format (although it does make ties more likely), but I was thinking of eliminating the non-common topics thing because some users ran into problems last time because they weren't 100% familiar with the topic. Maybe FLRC could be incorporated into it too. -- Scorpion0422 18:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Image review request
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
They're all PD and almost all are official government photos and hence PD for that reason. I intentionally chose PD photos. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I will AGF that the uploaders correctly tagged the images. Third-party feedback would still be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I have raised issue with 30 images, but it is my first comprehensive image review so if someone could check the first few to make sure I'm not way off base, that'd be great. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It's over the top, see my response there. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Question of criteria
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi! I'm considering making a list of books in one series, which currently contains 18 volumes. For the forseeable future, one additional book will be released each month for the series. I was wondering if this sort of list, updated monthly, could meet the FL criteria or if it would be too unstable. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO, it seems stable enough. Its not like its the next Superbowl. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think one addition per month would be considered unstable. Unless the content "does not change significantly from day to day" (emphasis mine), the list would be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that's fine too. We have episode lists of current television series, and they are updated on a weekly basis. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I just wanted to be sure. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wikipedia:Featured lists/Cleanup listing was updated again this month. I am going to try and do as many as possible, but if other people help it will make the job a lot easier. Some are quite easy to fix like updating deadlinks and dated statements, so if people fancy trying to do a couple each I am sure we could get a good proportion of these cleaned up in no time. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, I knew I forgot something. It's a little better than last time, but still some concerning issues. -- ScorpionO'422 15:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
"Champions" or "champions"?
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I would like to have at least one person comment on this. Even though it discussion is minor, we should still comment on those. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another length question
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
Namely List of Nobel laureates affiliated with King's College London, which is nine items. It's not slated to expand anytime in the near future, barring some Nobel laureate joining the King's College faculty or some UK alumni wining a Nobel Prize, both not terribly likely events. The tables are also fairly detailed. So do we go with the hard limit on this one or is this an exception? — sephiroth bcr(converse) 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd possibly say go with the hard limit, just because I believe that most of the universities in List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation could have "fairly detailed" tables and aren't "slated to expand" soon. If we let this one go, someone could make a similar case for the entries with 8 items, and then 7..., you see where this is going. I think we have to draw a line somewhere. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when has there ever been anything remotely resembling consistency in the way FLCs were reviewed?Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen you contibute to a FLC before, so how would you know? If you're so concerned, why don't you try and make things better? Or are you just one of the many users that only leaves snarky criticisms and never tries to fix things? -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, that's way snarkier than what I said. I do a lot of gnoming and watching. All you have to do is look at the current FLC set and see there's a wide gap and inconsistency in the level of review applied to the lists that are reviewed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
My question remains. If you're so concerned, why don't you try reviewing some FLCs? -- Scorpion0422 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. To Sumoeagle, bugger off. If you have nothing constructive to put forth, then don't bother posting. — sephiroth bcr(converse) 03:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not buggering off because you're going to. You want to play the foul language game, I can do that too.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Lets try to keep this on topic. If you came here to answer the question, do so. If you want to constructively discuss how to improve things at FLC then that is also fine, but if you just came here to bitch and whine then piss off. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Everyone just calm down. The crude language isn't helping at all and while I can see what probably prompted it, I can also see the point Sumo made that the FLCs aren't reviewed equally. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
He does have a point, I'm not going to deny that. I just find it silly that he's in here complaining about it and at the same time, has given us no suggestions and shown no will or desire to help us out. -- Scorpion0422 12:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Check his contribs, he doesn't edit nearly as much as we do. He probably hasn't seen the latest here. The obvious response would be to apply the same standards to all FLCs. Of course, that's easier said than done given humans review them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a notice at this talk page asking him to offer constructive criticism. Now, back on topic, I don't care either way. What is important is highlighted by Sumo above—consistency. We allowed List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters, a nine-item list that probably won't increase any-time soon, to be eligible, so I'm leaning toward letting Sephiroth take his list to FLC also. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
FLC Reviewer "depression"
Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion
I've noticed that FLC has a depression of reviewers. Not to sound like a dick, but me and Dabomb are the main ones who do reviews, and our opinions can't promote or archive every FLC. Not to point out names, but I see many editors who nominated and nominated articles but don't review any in return. I feel that those who nominated can at least review one. Maybe even the directors should start reviewing in a time like this. I bring this up because I don't want reviews to fail or pass with just our 2 opinions.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with you. Cannibaloki 23:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
As much as I agree, we have to keep in mind that FLC—like anything else on Wikipedia—is a volunteer service, so no-one's obligated to review anything. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 23:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it may be the constant repition amonst nominations. Looking through, a lot of them are "cookie cutter" lists (although there are exceptions). Just to clarify, such lists are not bad, a lot of the FLs I nominated are the same way, but it becomes tiring to review the same types of lists over and over again. -- Scorpion0422 23:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I am one of those guilty nominators Truco is talking about. Sorry about that, I don't have time reviewing b/c I have been busy with school and other stuff the last couple weeks. But I will try to review more FLCs.—Chris!ct 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think we should encourage nominators to review other lists, especially if they have more than one nomination open at a time. As for the lack of reviewers, I try to review when I can, but recently (and for the immediate future) I am going to struggle to contriibute as much as I would like to Wikipedia let alone FLC. Lastly, to Truco & Dabomb, well done for reviewing pretty much every FLC, I admire your ability to review so much, and (for the moment) can only wish I could help out more. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 00:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for those compliments ;) It seems like everyone is busy these days, I'm busy and barely am able to review FLCs. Well we aren't the only ones with a depression, FAC is also lacking, but they have enough to have a "general" consensus to promote or archive an article. I just think that we should encourage more reviewing in a way. I also agree with Scorpion because many of the lists are repetitions of other lists (mainly those about the United States Academy?) --Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that every review process has too few reviewers. FAC, FLC, GAN, PR. All have an excess of nominators, and shortage of reviewers. I would like to contribute reviews to FLC, but I don't have time to improve articles, review GACs, and do that. Basically, I think most reviewers can only do reviews at one process, and they stick with that process. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that we need to realize that these "depressions" come with the territory of volunteer-based processes, and we need to learn to work around them. The FLC nomination list is usually 35 to 40 FLCs long, so I don't see any pressing need here as of yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Directors should not do significant reviews as it compromises their neutrality. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing is neutral as long as they don't support or oppose.—Chris!ct 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not so, you're missing the point. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
We have two directors anyway, so I don't think there's a problem. That is, if Matthewedwards reviews a list in depth (I am thinking of a specific active FLC), he probably wouldn't promote or archive it, leaving that to Scorpion. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
How is reviewing not neutral? I don't understand.—Chris!ct 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
An Awards list rant
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I guess it's late to bring this up because we have a lot them, but I really dislike the awards list, especially the extremely short music ones (I'm not a big fan of the ones for a single film either, but that's for another rant). Sure, they're formatted nicely and they have references and they have 10 items, but do they really represent wikipedia's best work? Looking through, are some of them REALLY needed? I can pick out a dozen that seem to go against the reason why awards lists are needed in the first place: Because the page for that artist is too long and a split is needed. In other cases, a seperate list just seems unnecessary. For example: List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse. She has two albums, and the majority of the awards on the page were for one album, so why can't those awards go on the page for that album?
These lists should be used for artists with long careers who have received many accolades for many different works that would be too difficult to put in one place, like The Beatles or Quincy Jones. And yet, neither List of awards and nominations received by the Beatles or List of awards and nominations received by Quincy Jones even exist (and I think we all know why). Instead, we get FLs for artists with 1 Grammy nomination, a few BPI awards and a bunch of magazine awards. I probably should have said something earlier (I actually did once, but I was basically ignored), but I really wish we could clean up some of these lists. Such small lists with such a small, limited scope hurt the process because people look at them and say "that's all it takes?" -- Scorpion0422 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, and if you'd like - I can make a list here of all of these lists, with the intent of discussing which should be merged? iMatthew // talk // 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can make a list, but a merge discussion is jumping the gun a little. I'd like to get opinions from most of the regulars first. -- Scorpion0422 23:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really a regular, but Scorpion asked me to comment, so I figured I might as well. I'd rather agree with what Scorpion says here. While I mean no disrespect to the editors who worked on these articles, these articles would really be served better be integrating them into existing articles. A reader really won't want to jump to another article and read thousands and thousands of bytes just to find out that an artist won awards and nominations for just two albums. In my opinion, we ought to have a cutoff for a number of independent albums (and other related things) a person has had to have won things for before a separate list should be split off. But, that's just my opinion; what do the rest of you all think? Also, is it bad that I don't know who Quincy Jones is? NuclearWarfare(Talk) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Wikipedia's reputation would greatly increase if those "unneeded" lists were merged. As User:NuclearWarfare stated above, we need to have some kind of a cutoff. Anyway, the sooner the merge discussion begins the better Wikipedia will be. Thanks, Scorpion for starting this.--Crzycheetah 01:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I have started a test case FLRC here, so let's move discussion there. Could users please hold off on delist/keep votes for a bit and allow for some discussion first? Thanks, Scorpion0422 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Please, let us dicuss here or at WT:FL?. Opening up an FLRC as a test case is jumping the gun. See this comment by Sephiroth [2]. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I think WP:FLC is in trouble and I have sumarized my thoughts and opinions here. All feedback and comments are welcome. -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with what is said in the summary. It is unfortunate that I have supported dozens (and wrote a couple) of those lists that are looking more and more unnecessary. Another concern that I have is the fact that many FLCs are reviewed by only two or three reviewers (no names, although I think we know who they are), all of whom focus on the aspects that they are capable of assessing: prose, formatting, images, sources, etc. However, because of the lack of opinions and page views, other important parts of the list are up in the air—factual accuracy, comprehensiveness, scope. See this FLRC of a recently promoted list, where several important concerns were brought up but weren't even touched at the FLC. I think we all need to do a better job of scrutinizing all areas of a list. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate Scorpion's state of the union type of review, it seems very extraordinary and helpful. I am glad Scorpion is not stepping down but rather is trying to express the problems. I am aware of about 1,000 list-articles of historic sites in the U.S., by the way, which are excluded from FL eligibility by some petty, inappropriate (in my view) concerns expressed by a few reviewers (about some matters of list titles and about heavy-handed uses of Keys which may be suited for sports stats articles but not for historic sites articles). Also there is a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites, of which i am a founding member, which is about to generate a whole lot of really great list-articles covering sites world-wide, which will perhaps be all deemed ineligible for FL rating due to the same misplaced concerns. I and other historic site list-editors would step forward to participate in reviewing historic site lists, and share the workload and so on, but currently I expect that any efforts will be wasted by a few tactical opposers. I have been wondering about raising the general issues at this Talk page, to see if the general reasons for opposition by a few naye-sayers could be addressed centrally. However, it currently seems pointless to put forward individual historic site lists for FL consideration or to recruit reviewers to make distinctions between which lists represent Wikipedia's best work vs. not, given apparent-to-me kneejerk opposition likely from sports stats freaks or whomever, no offense intended, honestly. doncram (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Your essay is on-target, Scorpion. I fear, however, that the discussion is going to become balkanized. Do you want comments on that page, its talk page, or here? --Orlady (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, things are rather disorganized right now because I'm aware of several discussions going on (including one here, as well as a FLRC, a discussion in a FLC and a discussion at WT:FL?). Let's try and keep the general discussion here. -- Scorpion0422 02:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my point above is that the essay seems fine, but one issue it omits is that there are lists out there which at least some wikipedia editors (me) are not putting into the FLC pipeline i part because we (me) perceive the FLC process to be broken/flawed. Thus, Scorpion observes he/she is bored and that "I get the feeling that people are just reaching for the low hanging fruit and working on the easy FLs." In the case of now >1,000 list-articles on historic sites, the lists clearly significant, notable, useful and all that, and are not being produced for the reason of collecting FL awards. I don't know but I suspect there could be other types of useful lists being constructed in other topic areas which are also not coming to FLC. This is then part of the problem, that FL is boring because it is tending to attract manufactured-for-FL lists rather than good lists constructed for other purposes.
I suggest taking whatever actions necessary to get a Good List system set up. That would provide means for historic sites people and others to put forward good candidates, from which FLs can be developed. Currently, it is all-or-nothing: You have to meet FL requirements which seem irrational or otherwise unacceptable, in an unpredictable process that might or might not yield an FL rating, or nothing. Also, it would be easier for FL reviewers to turn down some of the less worthy applicants by being able to give them GL rating instead. I think having a Good List system would help the FL system. doncram (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is creep (not sure what type); we barely have enough reviewers to cover the existing processes, adding one more would make things worse. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I also don't think this is a good idea. If we encourage these lists <10 items we are surely encouraging WP:CFORKs and WP:LISTCRUFT. Can you give me an example of a list that wouldn't meet FL but you think would meet "GL" as I don't see the need for this. NB. Short lists can be audited for F/GTs. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think we get it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Why so serious? But why hasn't TRM visited?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's be serious for a moment. How should we kick out Matthewedwards? Should we do it slowly and allow him to keep his dignity, or should we just boot him and make as much fun of him as possible while doing it? -- Scorpion0422 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How about three directors? Nothing wrong with that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Or we could try to anger him by attempting to delist all of his FLs, hopefully prompting him to lash out and get blocked. :p Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
FLC doesn't have enough traffic to warrant three directors (although FA does). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I feel that we should first ask TRM whether he will be active enough to handle the directing responsibility, or whether he actually wants it again.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just joking. Matthew's job is safe. If anyone is going to step down it will be me. I was thinking that I would remain as director for now and try to clean the process up, then step down in the summer (because I'm going to New Brunswick) and if he wants it, TRM can have my spot. -- Scorpion0422 22:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well what? -- Scorpion0422 22:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Dabomb wants the position...? I'll support that. ;b -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As in, well, that was unexpected. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I don't come here for a week and all hell breaks loose! I think I've managed to read all the decentralised discussions relating to FL/FLC, and I'm going to reply once, here.
There has been a reviewer "depression" of late, and that is not only true for FLC, but all of Wikipeida's reviewing processes. I remember when before I became a director here it was The Rambling Man and I who reviewed every single nomination. Since I became director my reviewing has not been as frequent, but I will review when asked or I see a topic that interests me (nothing sports, basically). I don't !vote support or oppose any more but I will strike or cap my commments when I feel my comments have been resolved, and I don't close any of the FLCs where I do conduct a review. On all lists I close I run a couple of scripts through the article and check it for other things that need doing such as MOS-compliance, ELS, etc. Even if ten people supported its promotion, I would not promote it if I noticed things that don't meet the criteria. I would either fix it myself or leave the nomination open and leave comments. I don't think any FLC would be closed based on two support or oppose !votes; they will either be left open or restarted. (It may be seen, however, that if I do promote something, then I feel it does meet the criteria.) I don't think it's a good idea for directors to review every single nomination; neutrality doesn't just mean not !voting. We do need more reviewers though. We've lost quite a few over the last few months and it would be great if everyone who nominated could review at least one other candidate. I know there are some people who feel they can't conduct a good review or they don't review certain subjects, but even checking for one thing such as WP:ACCESS, WP:COLOUR, or WP:DASH is better than nothing.
I applaud Scorpion for giving his thoughts on the current status of FLC. It shows he cares about the process and wants to do something about it. I agree with some of the things he mentioned, such as what was said here about some of the FL awards lists being unnecessary. I also find some of the subjects of the nominations to be a bit boring, easy, and "cookie-cutter", but I think that also has something to do with the WP:BIAS that Wikipedia has (see my comments at Wikipedia:FCDW/October 6, 2008). Whether I like themor not, if the support is there and they meet the FL criteria, I don't believe that is a valid arguement for not promoting. Does FL? need a notability/usefulness clause? I'm not sure. There is WP:N. If a list is not notable enough for FL, then is it notable enough at all? For usefulness, I think that is a bit subjective. Dabomb86 mentioned Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration and Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814, but I think the people who have some sort of an involvement in those fields will find them useful. I find them interesting, but they are of no use to me. Same with a lot of the sports lists. Some are interesting to me, others are not; none are of use to me. Most are probably of use to those who have an involvement in the subject, though. I think that's the same for all the Featured lists, but at the same time they are probably all of some encyclopedic value. There are only a few which I think would only be of use or interest to fans or other small sets of readers and might be better at a Wikia, but they still meet the general Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It may be tough to find a common ground for a "usefulness criteria".
I'm mostly calling it a "usefulness" criteria for lack of a better name. What I am most concerned with is preventing pages where the split was not necessary in the first place from reaching FL. You said "I agree with some of the things he mentioned", is there anything else in my ramble that you disagree with? -- Scorpion0422 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Scorpion should step aside as director, he obviously wants to see things improve, as I do and we will work together with everyone else here to do that. If people want me to go, though, which is what I understand from this and the rest of that part of the thread, then I'll step aside. If someone does have a major issue with me, then let me know; I'll always try to address it.
I think most of us were joking with our comments, as far as I know, nobody wants you to step down. -- Scorpion0422 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it was clear I was joking. I don't really want to delist all your lists, just enough to knock you out of the WikiCup! :p Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be away until next weekend. My internet access is more limited than I expected it to be, which is why I never said anything last weekend when I went away. It's a shame this all came out while I was gone because I was caught unawares and I would have commented sooner, rather than just now when a lot of discussion and decisions have already taken place in my absense. I have email turned on and I get notified on my cell phone every time I get an email, so if anything major happens in the next seven days send me an email someone, and I will try to get online. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
My comment was not meant to be taken seriously. I was joking :P iMatthew // talk // 11:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We were joking Matt, we would never have done that without consulting you first.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-broadcast pilots
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've currently nominated the List of QI episodes for FLC. The list contains the details of a non-broadcast pilot, which I put in the main list with the show's first series (Series A). However, there is an argument that although it was the first episode made, it does not truly count as the first episode because it was not the first one shown on TV, and thus it should be removed from the main list and put in the prose. I personally think it does count as the first episode and it should kept in the main list. What does everyone else think? ISD (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd just break it off into its own section, which would eliminate all these problems. That is, at least, what one of your references does. I'd give it an mdash for its number, and renumber the other ones to match. This might merit a mixing up the DVD section, so that Pilot gets its own box but the DVD cells of the Pilot row and Series A row are merged. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 03:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Is anybody keeping this updated? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What are the grounds on updating it? Like which lists can make the cut?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
All featured lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind updating it. But what is the cut on the tables?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I found out about this subpage because I was recently served up List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States which I knew had recently been defeatured. There are a number of other defeatured entries there which need removing however I was slightly surprised that only 169 of the 1600 odd featured lists could be served up on the main portal page. Is there some criteria for inclusion? Alternatively could another way be found of choosing a random Featured List without having to update the /Lists subpage every time? Boissière (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What to do about current FLCs that may fail the new criteria?
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I'm currently in the process of looking over nominations and I am wondering what I should do with nominations like List of awards and nominations received by Ray LaMontagne and List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. If the current proposed criteria passes, there is a chance these lists would fail it. However, they do technically pass current criteria (and the latter has enough support for promotion). I can't archive them because I have made my feelings very clear and the nominators could accuse me of bias. However, my concern is that if I promote them, they could just end up at FLRC soon. I was thinking of maybe moving them to a new "on hold" section where they will remain until either they are withdrawn or when this issue sorts itself out. -- Scorpion0422 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll try moving them into a section, but it seems a tad dictatorish to me. -- Scorpion0422 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You could just leave them where they are with a note at the bottom of the page saying they are on hold. Similarly for the "needing review" template, you could note or have a different section for those on hold. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 16:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The Juniper list has only two supports; I thought you didn't promote on two Supports. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked at that specific list, but generally it's not the number of reviews, necessarily, but the depth of review that led to the supports as well as the director's feelings on whether it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll run as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project—from User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Note The first phase of this poll will start on 30 March. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, back...
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Guys (and girls?), just a quick notice to say thanks for all your kind words on my talk page upon my return. It feels good to be back but it may take a few days for me to refamiliarise myself with the goings-on here. I noted that there was some discussion as to me reasserting my former directorial position, but unless there's a strong feeling that this is really needed, I'm happy to get back to the issue of seriously reviewing each and every list. I'd like to think that during my time as director, the processes here changed for the good, we got a bunch of new, enthusiastic "listers" and my position as a reviewer is now more important than my former role. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to get rid of that horrible and unwelcoming message at the top of this talk page. Or at the very least, drastically rephrase it. Any objections? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Do it. I'd prefer just using the standard {{talkheader}} actually. Gary King (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with using talkheader, I think it should specifically mention that you shouldn't ask for reviews or promotions here, because that is why the header was added in the first place. -- Scorpion0422 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Asking for promotions used to happen in the days before the Directors, when FLCs might stagnate with no-one stepping up to promote or close; I don't think we need a header for that. As for "don't ask for reviews", is that a big deal? If someone says "Would someone like to review my list?", the next person can either reply "Yes" in a nice friendly manner, or say "Why not go to Peer Review so lots of people can look at it"? BencherliteTalk 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My audit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Data is based on my audit report here: User:Scorpion0422/FL audit. In most cases, I just did a quick glance over to make sure everything looked right. The type Fs listed here are mostly for things like lack of refs, bad formatting, small, lead, tagged pages, some image problems, etc. I'm sure if I had time to read every single one top to bottom I would have found some prose issues too.
Please note that this chart is just based on my findings. Also note that a list being included here does not mean I want to see it delisted. It's mostly Types A, B and (in some cases) F that are of the most concern.
Key
Type A: FLs that may not be needed. These are lists that were split off from another page for questionable reasons. Neither the main page or the FL are particularily long and some of the FLs have questionable notability.
Type B: Lists that recreate the content of another page with a little additional info.
Type C: FLs that are more article than list.
Type D: FLs that could be merged with another page (but not necessarily delisted).
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Today I read a comment by TRM and noticed List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) as a current FLC, and realised that at the moment there are so many different naming styles in usage. I really think we should try and choose one and apply it across the board so new lists can follow it. There must be well over a 1000 of these number 1 single and albums lists, and just taking a very brief look I found inconistent styles including (but by no means limited to):
"List of French number-one hits of 1966"
"List of number-one dance hits of 2000 (UK)"
"List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (U.S.)"
"Number-one Hits of 2009 (Romania)"
"Latvian Airplay Top number-one hits of 1999"
Now personally I prefer the last one as the country is a very important part of the title and IMO not something that should be left for disambiguation. The later also gives the specific chart name which is better that, for example, "number-one hits of 2009 (UK)" and could be ambiguosly refering to dance #1s, R&B #1s etc. I propose we try and decide on a naming convention for these lists, and how to include information about the year, chart and country. The lists/categories that will be affected are all these:
While I don't have a strong feeling on any particular naming convention right now, it is certainly true that we need to revisit all the lists and make sure we have a consistent naming policy... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The one thing that should be consistent is that the titles of all the lists should start "List of..." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow there is a massive can of worms to be opened up there. I don't have the time or energy to address all that at the moment so for now I'll try and standardise things one at a time. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
We've only had one FLRC delegate for the last little while (Sephiroth BCR, and he's been doing a fantastic job), which wasn't much of a problem because there was little traffic (I did consider asking a few users, but I was afraid of taking away reviewers from FLC). I have always liked the idea of having two, because then you have two sets of opinions, one can close and the other can comment, there is less of a problem if one goes away for a while, etc. With the new criteria reforms and my attempts to clean up the process, I thought it would be useful to add a second delegate. And I can think of no better candidate for that than The Rambling Man. So consider this the confirmation process. If anyone opposes, now is your chance.
Also, I've been considering adding a two stage Featured List Review process like FAR has. There might not be as much demand for it, but it might be useful to be able to review FLs without nominating them for removal. -- Scorpion0422 14:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure, under 50 edits in 5 months! I am of course joking, TRM knows the ropes and has FL director experience. It is great to have him back here, and I am confident he will quickly get up to speed (if he hasn't already!) with any changes that have occured whilst he has been away. His appointment has my full support, Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 14:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A solid choice; he has my full support. By the way, did you did ask him and Sephiroth of this? NuclearWarfare(Talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Support adding TRM as a delegate, oppose making FLR two stages; see Matthewedward's response here for my rationale. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
As long as TRM is still happy to review at FLC! I know from when I did it that it's not too time consuming, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I still don't believe an additional process for reviewing is needed, basically for the same reasons I gave at the link provided by Dabomb87. I do, however, think that we need some sort of review process where the result isn't "keep" or "remove" !votes. Not sure how it could be achieved, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps add a rule that says !votes cannot be added within a defined time period from the start date of the FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I like, I'm tired of responding to people who "vote" keep before the concerns are addressed. -- Scorpion0422 17:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. A funny little thing we have on Simple English Wikipedia analogous to FAC, called PVGA (proposed very good articles), allows an article to be nominated for two weeks, time for people to say what they think needs to be done to get the article up to the required standard, before it's moved to voting for a week. Almost works there, but with our volume of traffic, should definitely work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that kind of along the lines of having a two-layered process though? -- Scorpion0422 18:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It is a two-tiered process, I'm not necessarily advocating that, but what I'm taking as a positive from it is the period in which no-one can say yay or nay, just offer advice on how to save the list's featured status. I think it might...just...work... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It might work, but what about those rare cases when the speedy delisting criteria are met? I do like the idea of having a simple review process where you can fix kinks without threat of removal. Maybe, we could have a rule that there is no voting for the first week, after which the nominator can withdraw if they feel their concerns have been completely addresed. If they chose not to, then the voting begins. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure making voting forbidden would work. I am waiting for a current FLRC to close (guess which...) and (assuming it is delisted) plan to make 5 further nominations, which are fairly procedural and (should) have the same result. I do agree we need some method to stop people just adding keep !votes to good faith FLRC noms that do highlight some existing problems. Perhaps a no voting system for 1 week but that allows "speedy keep" or "speedy delist" !votes. I do realise that this system could be open to abuse and maybe this should be an unwritten rule... this option seemed a lot better in my head! Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to think that we could assume sufficient good faith that the editors contacted about their "soon to be delisted" lists will work as hard as they can to fix the issues raised by the delisting editor. A bunch of "Yeah, delist per nom" really doesn't achieve much while "Actually yeah, and while you're at it you could fix...." would be far more beneficial to the process. Speedy delist may not even need to exist any longer unless it's such a heinous case that it would bring Wikipedia's Featured content into serious disrepute and then WP:BOLD should apply and the FLRC directors should take control of the situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ouch
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If I had closed every FLC older than ten days, there would only be 12 nominations left... Was it something I said? -- Scorpion0422 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps people are just waiting for the outcome of the discussions about the new criteria; I am. Or maybe they are waiting for the new Cup round. <shrugs> Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Better than the problem FAC's having (too many nominations, not enough reviewers). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, 47 promoted FLs in March is the lowest numbers since that June. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
New criteria discussion: Final phase
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I think we've hammered out a good revised criteria here. Remember, if this passes, there will be quite a few FLs (my estimate is somewhere between 60 and 75) that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars (and as many others as possible, of course) before it's implemented. -- Scorpion0422 17:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just an idea, what does everyone think of doing a "Criteria review" every 3-6 months, a discussion about whether it works and any possible changes, additions or rewords that can be done. There might be problems with (lack of) participation, but a set time to look over the criteria every now and then might be useful. -- Scorpion0422 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"Criteria review" sounds a bit too CREEPy, I think that if there are any problems they will be brought up in due time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Lists that are too long
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
I know at the focus now is on lists that are too long. However, are there times when lists can have too items? I ask this because I want to start working on Houston Rockets all-time roster. Among other problems I have to solve is whether this list needs to be split up. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am curious to know as well.—Chris!ct 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You could do subpages for each name, or you could do subpages for the different positions (List of Houston Rockets forwards, etc). I think this page is okay though. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this list is fine. To me, a list is too long at roughly the 100K point. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think subpages would detract from the utility - if long lists are, say, sortable but their contents span over multiple pages, you don't get "all the facts" if you know what I mean. And I agree with above, this list isn't too long. Yet... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Concur that the list isn't too long. Barack Obama is an FA at just over 140kb, and the list you're talking about is, at the moment, almost 100kB shorter. I see no problems with having a "long" compete list. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 10:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(to Rambling Man) If a list is meant to be sortable, does that mean the table should just be one long one, not split up by name into sections? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A good question and one that when we had the 'terrible incident of the NHL list writers' we didn't really resolve. The primary benefit of sortable tables is that when you sort, say, by games played for a club, the top answer will be player who made the top appearance for the club. In football (soccer) lists, particularly in the UK, we have over 100 years of squads to add to a "comprehensive" list to guarantee this. So, we'd end up with thousands and thousands of people on the list. NHL lists, on the other hand, can be relatively "new", and yet in general they're split up. It's a funny old world.
In general, if the columns apply to most (or all) of the subjects in a list, the list should be one single one if possible. It is, however, my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
With the new criteria very close to being passed, we could run into problems with FLRC being swamped with noms. There are several easy answers (ie. speedy removal, lowering the minimum days, mass noms, etc.) but I would prefer to make sure every nom is given the full amount of time and the chance for regular editors to defend them. Any ideas or suggestions are more than welcome.
Slightly related to this, I have created the FL sweeps task force. The goal of this is to review every FL (and not just the quick glance over I gave them) and compare them against the new criteria. With this, I am hoping to be able to make sure FLRC doesn't get too many noms at once, and maybe even be able to save a few from delisting. -- Scorpion0422 02:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Adding preload and tool box to FLRC?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The revised criteria has officially been added to WP:WIAFL, and The Rambling Man has been added as the new FLRC delegate. In a period of just over two weeks, we've had new criteria, a new delegate, more reviewers, several important minor changes, a [possible] switch in the nomination method and most importantly, renewed interest. I just wanted to take this chance to thank everyone who participated in the criteria discussion and helped out recently, especially Matthew, TRM, Dabomb87, Tony1, Truco, Colin, Giants2008, Chrishomingtang, Resolute, Rambo's Revenge, Rlevse, Sephiroth, iMatthew and NuclearWarfare. Now the hard part begins: enforcing the revised criteria. -- Scorpion0422 03:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I just revisited every FLC in the "on hold" section and clarified or changed my position according to the new criteria. I strongly suggest that other reviewers do the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What to do about the (large) number of lists that fail the new criteria
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
A very large number of lists appear to fail the new Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criterion 3b: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." After a cursory look, I'm that a substantial percentage of all featured lists fail this. What should be done? Nominate for removal one by one? Remove all in a batch? Cool3 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a pain in the ass, but I think we should do each nomination individually, thus giving all contributors and nominators a chance to respond. Perhaps we could lower the minimum time to a week in obvious cases or 10 days so that the process doesn't get too swamped. -- Scorpion0422 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Methinks you should look down. iMatthew : Chat 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Shortening the time of FLRC's?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There were no promotions yesterday to allow reviewers the time to revisit the nominations to review against the new criteria. Including the six nominations that were put "on hold" while the discussion took place, there are now seventeen nominations that are older than 10 days and have had their review time extended. If you supported any nominations before the new criteria was put in place, please revisit the nominated page to ensure it meets the new criteria. Please state whether you think it does or not; any support or opposes made before 5 April which are not confirmed will be ignored. I'll also be asking editors on their talk page to revisit the specific nominations they've already removed; this is here just in case I miss anyone.
Our friends over at FAC are going to make some small but important changes to the {{FAC}} template. The problem before was that unsuccessful FACs were moved to /archive#, which meant all links to that page were left as redirects or redlinks. Starting tomorrow (April 1... Hey, wait a minute...), the process will use "stable subpages", so the first FAC will automatically be /archive1.
Sounds like a good idea, should we ask Gimmetrow to implement a similar system for us? -- Scorpion0422 13:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. And I can't imagine we'll get (m)any lists that are nominated more than 10 times. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?) 13:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should use FAC as our guinea pig before we convert Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
So, now that it's been used for a week, does anyone think we should not switch to it? -- Scorpion0422 17:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Everything looks fine to me, go ahead. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't kept up with how it's gone. Have any FACs closed that use the new system? How did they go? Matthewedwards : Chat 23:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
See the archive page for April. The transition period might be a little rough, but I think it would be for the better to change and be consistent with FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion for preload
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I don't know if this is in the FAC intro pre load or not, but can it be suggested for the nominator to check the dabs and external links with the toolbox tools upon nomination?--Truco 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessary; nominators can see and read, yes? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No need for such a harsh answer =( (jk). But, sure.--Truco 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
In an ideal world the nominator should do it before nominating. But it isn't, so it's just one of those things we have to check while reviewing. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Poll: autoformatting and date linking
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Awards and nominations lists
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I frequently encounter this issue. For lists that have multiple sections that list the awards, are the reason why the awards given supposed to be sourced? Or do their existence verify themselves?--Truco 23:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, if in the main article has references, do not need to repeat.--Best, Cannibaloki 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured lists in other languages
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I still think the English version is better. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Interpreting the requirements of stand-alone lists, content forking and reasonable inclusion within a related article
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
There are several featured lists, specifically discographies with ten releases, that were nominated and achieved FL-status before the new criteria update. If I was to nominate a discography with ten releases (that satisfied every other criterion) would you support it, now that the new criteria has been implemented. By the way the list is Jessica Mauboy discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Discographies are not affected by the 3b criteria, I believe, especially for an singer who is still on the rise, as it looks like Jessica Mauboy is. If it met the rest of the criteria, I'd have no problem supporting that. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Great. Thankyou very much NuclearWarfare, I'll just make some minor edits and I'll nominate it. Alex Douglas (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Scorpion said something about discographies having more justification to be separate lists; I'll try to dig up the diff tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting Matthewedwards. I'd really like to see the diff Dabomb87, I think it might have something to do with the view that the listing of sound recordings are the main body of work for an artist; like a filmography for an actor/director. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm less concerned about discographies than I am about awards lists. However, does an artist with one studio album really need a seperate discography page? Why can`t it just be combined with their article? -- Scorpion0422 20:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not sure whether I would support that. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) The reason why this list cannot be featured is because of its main article? If the artist's article was a GA/FA, the "Discography" section must be formatted like others, with a simple link to the 'discography' article related to the artist and some bullets of their released albums. Furthermore the artist has ten releases and unless consensus has changed, a previous precedent has it than a discography can stay featured with nine releases (see Nation of Ulysses discography). Furthermore there are several discographies with two studio albums (Dave Gahan discography, Maroon 5 discography, Billie Piper discography) so why not one? I don't think it would be reasonable to include the discography as part of the artist's article as in all GA/FA artist articles, the "Discography" section does not list the entirety of their releases. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
GAs to FLs
Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
In the FLC for Veronica Mars (season 3), the nominator said "Please note that although this is currently a good article, I have reformatted it to become a featured list." That really bugs me for some reason, that users would treat a page as an article to get it to GA, then reformat it so that it qualifies as a FL. It seems like abuse of the process. Should we try to make it so that any list page that is a GA can not become a FL? This would not affect the Veronica Mars FLC, by the way. -- Scorpion0422 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
There's something inherently wrong with structure of articles that can be easily converted to lists and vice versa. Could the FA William D. Boyce be converted to a list? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The article lost its GA status though. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but only because the nominator decided to try for FL status instead of FA status. -- Scorpion0422 20:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not the point, lists are articles are inherently different, good prose shouldn't be a easily convertible to a list. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) These types of articles draw a fine line between lists and articles. I don't know what the precedent is for determining format. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Smallville (season 1) (an FA) serves as an interesting comparison. The big difference is the production section (the Veronica Mars list at FLC doesn't have one) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't really looking to turn this into a list vs. article debate. I think the choice should be left to the nominators and if they decide to have nominate it for GA status and it's promoted, then it should nopt be delisted simply because the nominator suddenly decided that they wanted to try for featured status in the (let's face it) easier process. I am not accusing the nominator of anything, but some users may abuse the process so one they can take credit for both a GA and a FL. -- Scorpion0422 20:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, if the GA gets delisted, then the nominator loses "credit" for it, yes? In effect, it's switching one "badge" for another. I think this more of a case of changed consensus; that is, what was once considered an article is now considered a list when looking at other episode lists that are recently promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how they got to GA status (clearly we don't have a GL criteria..maybe we should think about creating one...like how we reinstated the "C-class"). The catch with FA over FL is that all of those season pages that are FL wouldn't pass FA in their current setup (the criteria for comprehensive would fail it, since there's the glaring omission of production of the season). Another thing is because some of the "prose" sections are actually just lists. Unless you're going into detail about the people, or the awards, then simply naming the people involved or naming the awards won is equivalent to listing them (thus "List" status). They have true prose content, but I think because they don't have production sections (which would basically be problem in an FAN), editors are choosing to go the FL route. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason Smallville (season 1) is a FA rather than a FL is because 19/21 episodes don't have pages. So, all of the production information about them is in that page which allows it to be very comprehensive. Whereas with The Simpsons (season 1), every episode has a page, so there is no point in having a large production section that just repeats information from other pages. And some current season FLs do have large production sections, ie. The Simpsons (season 5). As for a GL process, I seriously considered proposing one recently so that the smaller, somewhat content forkish, lists could be GLs, but I decided not to because where do you draw the line? Also, there would be very little room for improvement between GL and FL (since most FLs are predominantly tables), so a second process would probably just make a mess of things. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I would oppose a GL system for reasons stated above and also because we barely have enough reviewers for our existing content review processes, adding another would just stress the system more. It's all too CREEPy to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. I think there are a lot of pages for shows out there right now that are setting themselves up with FL season pages with the assumption that all of their episodes will have full, comprehensive pages of their own. I don't know about that. In some recent GACs that I've seen, editors were almost requiring that articles be FA status (and you have to sometimes remind them of the GA criteria). I think that a GL criteria could be created that would allow for continued growth to an FL status. I think it would just take some time to hash out. As for the "limited reviewers". We have a limited reviewing number in FAs, but we still have GAs. GLs can be just like GAs, where anyone coming along can review the page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't reply earlier; I didn't know this discussion was taking place. Anyways, the whole GA to FL thing was in no wise an attempt to get more credit. I don't care for credit (despite the listings on my user page :S), and I just wanted to improve the page. This third season page was the first season page of Veronica Mars that I created. I decided to go for the GA and FA process, and had some production information on the page. After talking to Bignole, I kinda changed my mind, because most of that info was already on the main Veronica Mars article anyways. I just thought it would be pointless to have all the same information on several pages. Anyways, I created the first two season pages and formatted them to be FLs. I nominated them and they passed. I then decided, sometime during this whole thing, that it would be strange to have two FLs and a GA/FL, so I reformatted it, took out the pointless production info, and turned it into a FL. That's the story behind the whole thing, and I hope it clears things up. Also, I think it is unfair if we say that any list page that is a GA cannot become a FL. Others may change their minds, or see that a list better accommodates the information than prose, and change the page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 02:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed this page. As the GA reviewer for that article, I justified going ahead and passing it based on the extensive amount of prose for the article, and I pretty much followed Cornucopia's logic train exactly. I thought that Corn would eventually take this to FAC, and I thought it would pass there, because of the extensive amount of prose. So the only thing that really happened was the article was converted into a list; I don't see that as a big deal. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 14:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Closing without explanations
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was wondering if it's normal to decline FLCs and not explain why? I nominated List of Mexican National Trios Champions, had quite a few comments - all of which were either dealt with or I was at a loss to what the commenter was trying to say. It was closed and not promoted without any comments on why, nothing in the review comments indicated this IMO. I've left a comment on the user's page but no response. Anyone here able to solve this for me please? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I felt it would benefit from a fresh nom since it still had active opposition. As for your talk page, I hadn't noticed it, so I apologize for not responding. -- Scorpion0422 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
RFC on the reform of ArbCom hearings
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The attention of all editors is drawn to a Request for Comment on a major issue for the English Wikipedia: a package of six proposals to move the ArbCom hearings process away from the loose, expansionary model that has characterised it until now, to a tighter organisational model. The RFC started Tuesday 29 April. Your considered feedback would be appreciated. Tony(talk) 16:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Two issues
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Dear colleagues, I've just done a run-through of the urgents. Could I put in a plea that reviewers be a little more willing to tag their comments with Oppose? It's a bore to have to return when the nominator pings you at your talk (they're doing that, yes?) and to either reinforce the issues if unaddressed or strike through the Oppose, but is an essential aspect of the process.
I was concerned (rather than accusatory) about large tracts of plot description without specific sourcing or quotation marks here. The Signpost did a comprehensive piece on paraphrasing and attribution last week, and the policy is in a mature stage of drafting. But it's required already that we cover ourselves. I'm given to believe that WP's editors have invented the wording of theses plot descriptions entirely. I've asked for clarification at the nomination page. Tony(talk) 06:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Opposes would be helpful on occasion. While remembering it's not a voting process, it does make it easier to figure out the general conensus at quick glance. As Tony said, I hope people do return to the nominations to see if their concerns have been addressed. Whether or not nominators give reviewers a nudge, I don't know, but out of courtesy it should be done anyway, I think. That said, if the nominator has addressed the points made when someone reviews, I'm a little more inclined to disregard the oppose when closing and consider it a neutral.
I did a Google search on a few sentences and turned up only the article's page or the nominator's sandbox as results. Whether they appear in another language on a website or in a book, I don't know, but the AGF-ness in me thinks they're ok. Thank you for raising the point, though, Tony. It's actually not something I think about often. :/ Matthewedwards : Chat 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I think watching out for plot descriptions generally is essential, not only because we need to be sure that they aren't copied from other sources (I haven't done any evaluation of featured list or article candidates, but I would hope any editor at this stage would understand WP:C), but also because sometimes these may be overly detailed and fall into the category of abridgment, which is derivative work. This may not be much of a concern with featured list candidates, either, since I presume that overly lengthy plot descriptions would be discouraged anyway, but I think it's worth keeping in mind. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
New system
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is just a heads up that we are currently in the process of switching to the archive system used by FAC. See this for more information. -- Scorpion0422 12:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
New update system
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
I was recently discussing with User:X! about a better way to organize the backlog for FLC, and noted that a system similar to what RfA has at WP:RFXR (that is frequently updated by a bot) would be beneficial here. The columns would include the article, nomination, amount of time the nomination has run, and the nominators, and after 10 days have elapsed, the rows would shade (similar to how overdue RfAs are shaded in RFXR). This ideally would be posted here on WT:FLC. As this would be frequently updated by a bot (X! has agreed to write the bot; see discussion here), it would make it easier on the directors (as versus frequently updating Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog manually) and offer a better way to alert reviewers to overdue FLCs that need commentary. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr(converse) 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a pretty good idea. The table might be a bit large at times, but having collapsibility capabilities on it could easily solve that. Working in table sortability might also be a good idea, as it can help group by author to check if one author is flooding FLC. All in all, this sounds like a good idea, though it doesn't really have to be updated as often as the RfA one, perhaps once every 12-24 hours? NuclearWarfare(Talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, but it could also promote the idea that FLC is a majority vote (which is what a lot of users seem to think RFA is). It might be worth a try. -- Scorpion0422 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that's alright, but not really what I was thinking of. I was hoping they would all be posted linearly, with a four column table and something like: Article name + Link to FLC, Nominator(s) name(s), Time elapsed since nomination, Number of editors who have commented. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 00:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of a table like WP:RFXR with columns like NuclearWarfare is indicating. — sephiroth bcr(converse) 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to have nominators' names. Could introduce bias and/or favouritism and all that, cf. one of the discussions @ WT:FAC. Otherwise it's an interesting idea. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind tables, but do not want to see tabulations of supports or opposes for reasons outlined by Scorpion above. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's limit down the columns we want: article, link to nomination, amount of time that has elapsed since the nomination began, and nominators. Matthew, that FAC discussion is ludicrous. We're so obsessed with WP:OWN issues that we're overlooking common sense. — sephiroth bcr(converse) 01:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dabomb, but I also do see a reason for including the nominators. If one editor had been introducing lists at a very rapid pace, this would allow reviewers to easily find a candidate on perhaps a similar topic, but written in a different style by a different author, or something like that. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 01:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is ludicrous, I agree. And I don't agree with her original proposal either, but I do agree with the point she made, and have thought it for a while. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
Done. I have raised issue with 30 images, but it is my first comprehensive image review so if someone could check the first few to make sure I'm not way off base, that'd be great. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
