Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 20

WP:OVERLINKING for sortable tables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referencing and Splitting of excessively long lists

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

Yes, 2,500 entries would be way too many for one list. There are multiple options for you to consider. You could try something akin to the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster series and split the songs by alphabet letters, combining letters with few songs. Or you could split them by language and have 4–5 separate lists for the Hindi songs, which could be divided by alphabetical order. There's also the possibility that you could do lists by groups of years, if that information is available for Ghoshal's songs. I just reviewed a list of award recipients which was part of a series of lists divided by the year the recipients were honored, and the method in that list seemed sensible to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Lady Gaga/archive1

Hello. This nomination has 5 supports and everything has been addressed. Any chance of it being promoted please so I can add it to my cup submissions please?

Pinging FL director Giants2008 and the delegates Crisco 1492, SchroCat and PresN.  — Calvin999 19:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a spin over it shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't help but feel there's a conspicuous take page header that may be relevant here. But that can't be right. :/ GRAPPLE ^X 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't think what you mean Grapple X!!! Harrias ^talk 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Care to elaborate Grapple X?  — Calvin999 23:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning. Thank you for your cooperation". From the very top of this page. GRAPPLE ^X 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that I feel like I should have to explain myself or be the centre of mysterious comments, but one of the delegates actually told me to post my comment on this very page. So I guess your comment isn't actually directed me per se, you are directing it at PresN.  — Calvin999 00:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I had forgotten that message was up there, actually, I just don't like it when people private message one of the delegates when any of us could do something. I didn't really expect that anyone would jump at promoting your article. --PresN 00:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Elvis Presley filmography - TV appearances

I was already thinking of doing a page move on this to "Elvis Presley on film and television". But a question has come up on the Elvis Presley filmography/archive1 about whether or not some television appearances should even be on there. Specifically, a reviewer had requested removal of everything in the television table above the Frank Sinatra show. That includes Ed Sullivan, Steve Allen and Milton Berle shows. Could I leave the table as is, if I just moved the page? Please advise. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neelix's old TFL submissions

I'm not sure how many of you have noticed the situation involving the redirects of Neelix, who used to be the leading nominator at WP:TFLS. It's all over ANI and ArbCom pages, and is becoming very messy for all parties. With that in mind, we should probably address his old TFL noms, which are getting stale anyway. One was suggested to run in December by the list's FLC nominator, so I'll probably schedule that article, but that still leaves four old lists on the page. Could any available reviewers spend a few minutes checking any of the four oldest TFL submissions and provide input with the aim of getting them off the page, one way or another? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a spin over these today and comment on them individually. It may be that we clear out some of the historical entries andonly retain one or two, but at least we'll know where we stand for the current noms. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We've now gotten multiple reviewers to comment on the old noms. Perfect. The really questionable ones have been removed, and SchroCat appears to be doing some work on the Crafoord Prize list, so I'll leave that one on the page. It looks like we're going to have one more viable TFL candidate than I was counting on, and there's plenty of space available for any of you reading this who have an FL that you'd like to see appear on the Main Page. If it interests you, feel free to come by the TFL submissions page and propose a blurb for a future TFL. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

These are some possibles that have passed recently:

• List of Alamo defenders, nominated by Maile66

I'll write something later today. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• List of ant subfamilies, nominated by Jonkerz
• Central Committee elected by the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), nominated by Trust Is All You Need
• Timeline of the 2010 Pacific hurricane season, nominated by Cyclonebiskit
• List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn, nominated by West Virginian

I've pinged the nominators to get their input on whether they would like to see the lists on the front page. If any of them would, and can write a blurb, that would be great; if they don't want to write the blurb, one of us can step in to write it up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! I've submitted a blurb. jonkerz ♠talk 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn already ran on October 12, so that one is out of the question. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Doh! Missed that. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, thank you for the consideration though! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Socks notice

Hello! Recently we have a bunch of socks who have been nominating various subpar articles for FA/FL/GA status without majorly working on them. All socks are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TekkenJinKazama. The socks seem to be infecting entertainment related page majorly. Hence requesting all reviewers to do a basic background check of the nominator, their edit histories related to the nomination page, etc. before starting the review and wasting your time. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: currently, no FLCs have nominators on that sock list, nor do any of them appear to be subpar drive-by nominations. TekkenJinKazama appears to mainly focus on GAN (where he can pass his own articles), so reviewers here should not be unduly concerned. --PresN 06:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jackie Chan filmography/archive1 failed a month ago where three reviewers had given comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Support comments from User:TheFame08

The above user has been going around adding Support comments to random Wikipedia FACs and FLCs, no credibility I can see. Suspected sock at present as I file a report. Delegates please strike it from the concerned nomination pages. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Delegates for WP:TFLS

Should ask it at WP:TFLS, I know, but here it's more likely to get more responses as this area is more active than the said page. I think we should have a few more users (maybe the current FLC delegates) who can select TFLs for dates as it can be a difficult and tiring job for one person to select lists for each date for the Main Page. WP:TFAR has three coordinators this should also have more than one. -- Frankie _talk 12:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're worried about whether I can handle the burden, please don't. I'm actually feeling better about scheduling TFLs than I have at any point since I started having to write blurbs myself. For the first six months of blurb-writing, I was like a chicken with my head cut off, scrambling to find good picks from the various categories. Now I've been able to go through the current FLs and plan out the next few months in my head, which will help me survive the American tax season, my busy time in real life. It will be easy for me to adjust my thinking based on what gets nominated at TFLS. Speaking of the subject, the best thing any of you can do to lighten my load is to continue making nominations there from our pool of FLs; transferring a blurb from TFLS is less time-consuming than writing one manually. As for your main question, I wouldn't be opposed to a second (or third) scheduler if the community feels it necessary. Still, don't be concerned about me vanishing out of the blue one day, as has happened elsewhere. Not getting involved in all of the drama on Wikipedia does wonders for one's desire to keep editing. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Chiming in with a word of appreciation for Giants2008 here, who does a fantastic job in keeping TFL in order. From someone who has "been there, done that" when it comes to selection of main-page featured content! Bencherlite^Talk 21:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. if Giants2008 does want any help, then we can do that formally, by assigning a delegate, or informally, by just all mucking in and doing what we can. I think in general WP:FL is a pretty well looked after section of the encyclopaedia, and we really have to give Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat and PresN a lot of credit for that. Thanks chaps! Harrias ^talk 08:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Director/Delegate instructions page

@Giants2008, Crisco 1492, and SchroCat: For a long time now, we've been using a cobbled-together and increasingly messy and outdated set of instructions for handling FLCs in userspace at User:Matthewedwards/FL, or at least that was what I was given when I started as a delegate. I figured that with a new bot, we could do with some new, cleaner instructions that are easier to find, so I've created Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Instructions (WP:FLC/I, WP:FLCI) to easily show what steps we need to take for FLCs/FLRCs, and what the bot is doing for us. Hopefully you (or someone else in the future) finds it useful. Posting here in the open instead of your talk pages because I don't think it's exactly a secret what the promotion steps are. --PresN 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent idea PresN – I'm always happier that information about processes on 'central' parts of the encyclopaedia are stored on their own related pages, rather than in userspace, so this is a very positive step, as far as I'm concerned. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've been using Matthew's page for a long time as a regular refresher and have always found it helpful to the extent that it was still useful. I'm very pleased to see a more up-to-date version that isn't hidden away in userspace. Thanks, Pres. More importantly, have I really been a director here for that long? I'm getting old. :-( Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy that's quite an amazing thing to do. I don't how did you even manage to do such a complicated thing (adding that timeline). That's very helpful. Thanks PresN. -- Frankie _talk 18:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't make the timeline; I just copied it from the old instructions and updated the currentdate. Looks like it was originally made by Scorpion0422 back in 2009, and steadily updated ever since. --PresN 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Be that as it may the timeline is still helpful. Again, thank you! -- Frankie _talk 22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Feedback requested on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1

I nominated List of tributaries of Bowman Creek for FLC about six weeks ago and have received relatively little feedback thus far (are two supports enough for promotion?), so would anyone be willing to leave some more comments. I'm aware that reviewing another FLC is the best way to get back, but there are only two that I have the know-how to review, and both were nominated by people who've already reviewed mine. (I'll try to get around to reviewing them after I create&nominate List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

List of reptiles of Bulgaria

Alright, really hate to say it, but Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of reptiles of Bulgaria/archive1 has been open for 3 months now, and the nominator Gligan hasn't edited since November 14. It doesn't seem like he's going to come back to address the last point of the 3rd review, nor the new 4th review, so we need to take it down. I'd do it, but since I reviewed the list I'm recused on that one. --PresN 01:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell you what. If you agree to take care of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Whiplash (2014 film)/archive1 when the time comes (I'm conflicted there), I'll close the reptiles of Bulgaria nom over the weekend. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Deal. --PresN 15:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A bot?

I am sure this has been proposed before but I was wondering if we could have a bot to do the processing of the close of nominations. I have been closing the nominations occasionally but Cowlibob beats me to it most of the times. Unfortunately the user is not very active and a few nominations are often missed. I know that there was a bot who had been doing the task but went inactive. I guess it's the time to run a new one. When FAC can run a bot to do the task why can't FLC? -- Frankie _talk 11:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like FAC has a working bot again. The bot is run by Hawkeye7, a veteran contributor at the content processes. Hawkeye, would it be possible for FACBot to handle FLC duties as well? If not, the code is available at User:FACBot/fac.pl for anyone here with the required skills. Unfortunately, this is way out of my league. Just looking at that code leaves me almost as rattled as I was at the end of the game yesterday. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that can be done. Do we have a procedure for closing FLCs? Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I know Hahc21 wrote User:Hahc21/FL Bot, but parts of it (the templates in user space) don't strike me as entirely right. Harrias ^talk 19:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: So, to specify what the steps are that the bot would need to do (A summation of the overlong User:Matthewedwards/FL:

• 1) When a FLC/FLRC nomination is closed, the bot should put {{subst:Fl top| result= '''{{{STATUS}}}''' by {{{CLOSER_SIGNATURE_AND_TIMESTAMP}}} [{{{DIFF_OF_CLOSING}}}]}} at the top of the nomination, and {{subst:Fl bottom}} at the bottom.

• 1a) STATUS is whether it was promoted/not promoted, based on if the page was transcluded to e.g. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2015 (promoted) or e.g. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/November 2015 (not promoted) for FLCs, and if it was transcluded under the keep or delisted section on e.g. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/November 2015 for FLRCs.
• 1b) DIFF_OF_CLOSING is the diff where the delegate actually put the nomination on the appropriate log page.

• 2) If the nomination was a passing FLC, then place {{Featured list}} on the list's page. If it was a demoted FLRC, remove that same template
• 3) Update article history template on the list's talk page/remove {{featured list candidates}}/set class to FL/List on banners; this step is basically identical to the FAC bot step

Those are the steps that used to be done by a bot. I don't know what else the FAC bot does; it would certainly be nice for a bot to:

• Transclude the nomination onto the correct page based on whether the closer said promoted or not promoted
• Update {{Featured list log}} (add a +1 on the correct month/type spot)
• If a promoted FLC, add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages/remove the oldest notice
• If a promoted FLC, add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on

But those actions have historically not been done by a bot so no one would really expect that if you think it's a lot of work. --PresN 20:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds okay. I will have to raise a request at BRFA. I'll write the Bot on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be amazing, thank you so much! --PresN 20:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! It'll be so great to have a working bot again, not to mention one that does even more than the old bot did. Thanks from all of us, Hawkeye. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I was summoned here and am glad to see a bot is being worked on. → Call me Hahc21 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I am working on it. Have begun running tests in sandboxes. I will apply for a WP:BRFA later in the week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bot is now ready

The Bot code has been written, and testing has been undertaken in my sandboxes. The Bot has been approved for a 30-day trial at WP:BRFA. The next step is to run it in production. Next time we have a FLC, instead of carrying out the manual procedure, could you mark the nomination with the FLCClosed template, and notify me? Sometime in the following 24 hours I will start the Bot, and let it do its magic. I will then check that each step has been performed correctly. When I am confident that all issues are resolved, I will have the Bot run on a regular schedule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that all you have to do is add the FLCClosed template. The Bot will do everything else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: awesome, thank you so much! I've gone ahead and passed Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak, and will stand by to see what the bot does with it. A question- what are the magic words to pass into the FLCClosed template? I used "promoted" here, but presumably there's specific wording we should use for promoted/failed/withdrawn/removed/kept - are those the words? --PresN 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bot knows about "promoted" for promoted; "not promoted", "failed" and "withdrawn" for failed; "removed" and "kept" for reviews. More can be added. We should update the template doco while we're at it. Wednesday is not a good day for me; I will run it tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 - excellent news, and thanks. Could "archived" be added to the list of failed candidates? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done The Bot has discovered an anomaly. Alexandra Stan discography is not a featured list candidate anymore, but it is still in Category:Wikipedia featured list candidates. Anyone know why? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: it doesn't appear to be? For me, it's just in "Wikipedia featured list candidates (contested)", which is where former FLCs get put by the article history template. Doesn't seem like there's an equivalent FFAC category. --PresN 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7: Could you take a look at the bot? It did this while trying to promote one of the noms. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Corrected. The Bot is currently running in supervised mode. I have to check that each step is performed correctly. It won't run automatically untiul I am satisfied that everything is right. We'll get there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's great - thanks Hawkeye! - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Ok, closed another one to test with - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Porto records and statistics/archive1. --PresN 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That was great. A near-flawless run. I need a fix for article the talk page, which I will test shortly, but otherwise everything looks very good indeed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Tiny issues that I spotted: on the Template:Announcements/New featured content page, the bot piped out "List of" rather than "List of(space)"; the closing template on the nomination page listed my username but didn't link it; on the talk page, it removed the old FLC template but not the line break after it, resulting in some whitespace left behind; and the one you've fixed, that currentstatus wasn't set. Tiny details, really, just thought I should mention them. --PresN 19:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Y Thanks for that. I hadn't noticed all of those. All have been fixed. I also taught the Bot how to handle old peer reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Ok, Giants2008 just promoted 5 more lists, if you're still running it manually: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional/archive1, List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tinashe discography/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust/archive1. --PresN 00:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Still running it manually. I'll run it against these tomorrow. If it gets through them all okay, I will set the Bot on automatic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Very important: The FLCClosed template needs to be included, not substituted. Although they look the same, the Bot will not recognise a substituted template. I have adjusted the nomination pages accordingly. (For this reason, the Bot credited me as promoting the lists)

Also, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga/archive1 was partially promoted by GagaNutella, and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tinashe discography/archive1 by SNUGGUMS but not all the manual steps were followed. So I reverted the talk page and removed the Featured List template from the article so the Bot could perform its work. We will have to be vigilant about this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot now scheduled to run automatically daily. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the partial promotion by GagaNutella and SNUGGUMS: it took a long time to have this bot so I guess we humans did that manually and not all might be aware of it (the bot). -- Frankie _talk 18:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of the bot. As FrB.TG points out, humans have often had to perform manual closures for quite a while. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the substitutions; that's my fault. I won't be doing that again! Meanwhile, I noticed one minor problem in the promotion log this month. The bot is listing the most recent promotions on the bottom of the page, when we've always placed them above the older promotions. Hawkeye, do you think you can tweak the bot to place the incoming promotions on top? Also, I assume non-promotions will be handled the same way and require the same fix. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem. The code is parameter-driven; the same process is used for the failed log. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - looks like the bot is still in manual mode so just letting you know- Giants2008 promoted Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/60th Academy Awards/archive1. --PresN 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

He knows already. That one hasn't been finalized by the bot yet, and he said he was looking for the reason why. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: hey, just saw the bot run through for another nom, but Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Wolfmother/archive1 from a couple days ago wasn't picked up, not sure what I did wrong with it. --PresN 02:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. The problem is that there is a Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Wolfmother/archive2. And the Bot wants you to close that one. I'm not sure what happened here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Huh. That's... really weird. Looks like the nom created 2 nominations at the same time, then only posted the first. Well, deleted the second nom since it was never used, so that should fix that. --PresN 04:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And the Bot goes through on manual run. I would have deleted it myself, but I'm not an admin. Let me know if there were any problems. "promoted" is more common than "not promoted" Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: minor bug report: when the bot removes an FLC from WP:FLC, it does not remove the line break with it; as a result there are some amusing holes in the page where nominations used to be. --PresN 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

In 2015 I had 22 FLC promotions, more than any editor in the year. I would like to thank all of the reviewers and delegates who participated in my nominations and made it possible for me. Happy new year. -- Frankie _talk 11:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad supports again

Well, this was raised by The Rambling Man earlier this year. As always, many candidates receive overwhelming supports (often from users who are relatively new). A majority of those users clearly lack the understanding of the FLC criteria and the process. As TRM pointed out, it's fairly evident that a few editors are helping each other out without upholding our standards. I'm not willing to point out editors, but this is not just confined to FLCs, but happens across GANs and even FACs. Also, there is some form of indirect canvassing, which is often overlooked by other editors. Above all, the most worrying factor is that the idea of WP:Consensus seems to be unfairly compromised by these support votes. I understand that we are in dearth of good reviewers (who have an understanding of a wide range of topics), but extra scrutiny is needed in some form to ensure that the standards are met. —Vensatry _(Talk) 09:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to tell us that there is widespread canvassing at multiple content processes, I think that you need to be willing to name names or otherwise give examples outside of the Bachchan FLC where this is occurring. If not, how can we hope to improve the editors' behavior and get them to review with a more critical mind, or be able to know whose reviews shouldn't account for much? I'm not personally a huge fan of asking for reviews, but I can't blame editors for doing so when the content processes are all short of reviewers. Many of the editors who don't have reviewing connections find their candidates archived, so they must feel pressure to prevent that from happening. Still, we should monitor such review requests to ensure that real reviews are being asked for, not one-line supports that don't help us closers much. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Apart from the Indian cine lists, one major area is the music lists. Although not an obvious form of direct canvassing, but it's happening more like a QPQ; most of which are supports without no real review. I don't see a problem if the reviewers are well-versed with the topic and happy to lend their supports if they feel the list meets the criteria, but in most cases they aren't. As a result, some bad lists get promoted without no actual reviews taking place. And yes, I perfectly understand that there's nothing wrong in requesting for reviews, and we cannot blame editors for doing so. But then, I'm seeing many lists of substandard quality being promoted and some really good ones failing due to lack of reviews. There is one particular user who has never reviewed a nomination to my knowledge, except for those one-line supports. Again, we cannot blame the user when the nominators constantly keep requesting them for reviews. Perhaps they are being nice to the nominators. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is the user who is only providing one-line supports? I'd really like to know so I can factor that into closing decisions, and I'm sure the delegates would appreciate the information as well. We can discount their supports, or possibly even help to change their behavior. Perhaps you think naming the user would be assuming bad faith, but it sounds like you already believe that their supports are invalid. Personally, I'd rather discount one or two editors than an entire field of editors, if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the job of the closer to examine the strength of the arguments given. A support or oppose that does not explain its reason should not be given the same weight as someone who gives a criteria based reason. The is the essence of WP:CONSENSUS. There is not a debate on Wikipedia that does not have the deal with low quality contributions. HighInBC 17:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Somehow when I posted the above I thought I was commenting on the featured picture process. What I said pretty much applies here too, but I don't have much experience in features lists so I guess that makes me one of those people who comment without knowing what is going on ;). HighInBC 16:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but I still see no benefit to refusing to name users who may be involved in canvassing. I've seen bunches of canvassing accusations lobbed against specific editors at various processes, from content reviewing and editing to venues like ANI and RFA. At least if the users are named, they might be able to address the complaints and we can know that their views may need to be discounted. While it is part of our job to judge the strength of reviews, more available information can't hurt. That's why the original post was made here: to bring the issue to light. In that spirit, I'd still like to know who the user is that Vensatry is talking about. It would be less vague and better for everyone involved, and I don't want to be put into the position of assuming bad faith on most short reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no dog in any fight here other than the just and fair assessment of FLCs. I certainly have seen a group voting mentality, particularly for Indian-related lists. I will make a double-check of current FLCs and provide an assessment if it's deemed helpful, but generally, if I see "Support" without a single comment, I get edgy. I'm sure the FL directors and delegates are on top of this kind of dubious posturing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can provide a check of FLCs in the areas that have been called problematic (or anywhere else you want), I think all of us would appreciate the help. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Giants2008: This should give you a fair idea! —Vensatry _(Talk) 14:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been pondering for a little while whether we need to have specific and spelt out source and image reviews for each nomination, as at FAC. While I don't think it is common-place, there are reviews that sneak through with three "friendly" supports, that have below-par referencing. Making sure that a specified source and image review has been done for each nomination could be worthwhile. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that more specific reviews would be a positive step for FLC. My greatest concern is that we may not have the reviewers to pull it off. That is especially true for image reviews, which hold up many FACs; that process has few qualified image reviewers, and I don't know how many of them are involved at FLC. Still, I think we can at least do source reviews better than we do now. Here's my plan, if the community agrees: we can add a source-checking box at the top of this talk page, similar to the one at WT:FAC, where candidates needing specific source reviews can be listed. The reviews would include checks for both source reliability and formatting, and the delegates and I will look for indications that a source review has been done before promoting a candidate. If this process is successfully implemented, we can expand the concept to image reviews as well (I'd like to see more image-related comments at FLC in general). How does this sound to everyone? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I would be happy to provide specific source and/or image reviews, as I don't always have the time to complete a full article (list) review, but could provide these sorts. Harrias ^talk 17:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Harrias, I've gone ahead and added the box, with the first batch of candidates needing source reviews. If you or anybody else sees one you're interested in, please give the sources a look. Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed a great move! Good job Giants2008 and Harrias. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Vensatry. While I'm here, I want to ask Crisco, PresN, and SchroCat not to promote any more FLCs without an explicit source review. This won't work unless all closers are on board. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Good plan too; thanks to you both. - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Back

Hey guys, I just wanted to say hi and that I'm back. I will help as much as I can reviewing lists and am still around if any other help is needed. I see that PresN has done a good job as my replacement :) Cheers! → Call me Razr Nation 05:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I was super confused when I saw this message- this is Hahc21, for everyone who didn't know, he changed his name on December 30. --PresN 06:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's me :) → Call me Razr Nation 09:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Great to have you back. If I may make a suggestion, there are several FLCs towards the bottom of the list that could use additional reviews to avoid being archived for inactivity. Any help you could give us in giving these nominations the attention they deserved would be great for the process. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look and help if I can. Cheers. → Call me Razr Nation 01:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Precisely what is involved in a source check?

Hi. I see at the top of this page is a list of FLC nominations that need source checks. (Is this new? I haven't noticed it before.) I'd be very happy to be involved with that, but I'm not sure precisely what it involves. Could someone clarify the procedure for doing a source check?

Many thanks.

Relentlessly (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Giants2008, SchroCat, PresN, and Crisco 1492: —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to a source check. The first looks at the formatting of the references and sources to ensure they are in line with the MoS and run consistently. The second part is a spot check to ensure the information in the article is actually contained in the source. This should also check for any copyright violations or close paraphrasing too. – SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat. One more thing – what precisely does a "spot check" involve? How many sources? Relentlessly (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• A representative sample. The number depends on the reviewer, but I'd say at least 3 of the most-used sources. Fortunately, spot checks aren't generally required for every review. But first-time nominators definitely need one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Crisco 1492, that's very helpful. Relentlessly (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There are two more aspects to a good source review. The first is reliability, which you can check at the same time as you look at formatting. This is one of the most important parts of a review, as bad sources reflect poorly on us. If you see something like a personal blog, a copyright-violating YouTube video, or some unfamiliar website, speak up about it. The other aspect is whether the links are functioning properly. There's a link-checking tool in the toolbox next to the FLC instructions that is very helpful. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that both of my current nominations are listed for source check. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry/archive2 hasn't had an official source check but I can say that four reviewers there expressed quite a lot of concerns (now resolved) regarding references' consistency, reliability and verifiability. But of course I am not against for further check. Just saying. -- Frankie _talk 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Easy ping template

@WP:FLC director and delegates: I'm seeing a lot of people pinging all of the director/delegates individually, or just giving up and messaging only one of them. To make it easier, I've made a {{@FLC}} template, which will ping all four of us as long as you sign the edit (same as a regular ping). --PresN 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that it works properly. Thanks for doing that, as it should make things a little easier for us. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Recently I was accused of adding some "friendly supports" on nominations and asking the nominators of nominations for the same. I, therefore, would like the delegates to carefully check a nomination involving me, as I wouldn't want to see a subsequent FLRC/FARC. Thank you. -- Frankie _talk 14:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This should really go into the FAC talk page, not here. It would not be an overstatement to say you are strengthening your arguments (by indirectly quoting your participation in FLCs), in an inappropriate place, so as to succeed in your first FAC. I'm not worried about your past contributions as they seem fine to me. I was rather discussing about your first FAC. —Vensatry _(Talk) 15:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't need to "impress" some users (or delegates) to have my FAC passed. My mistake was that I asked for a favor from a user. Anyways, you can go on and accuse me of anything you want to. I have given my lengthy explanation in my FAC and am done with this drama. -- Frankie _talk 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

'Impress' need not have to be placed with in quotes really (if you're quoting my response). It's good that you realised your 'mistake'. This discussion clearly doesn't belong here. —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely it does belong here 'cause I am not the first user, who you have labelled an "invalid reviewer". -- Frankie _talk 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Nowhere did I use the word 'invalid'. I cannot be held responsible for your own assumptions. And, you should stop taking things personally. —Vensatry _(Talk) 18:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not taking anything personally as I haven't callde myself your enemy or something. You cannot call my review invalid either just because I haven't left comments. I do understand that you are trying to stop those biased reviews; however, I can assure you that my ones are not among them. And Johanna's review was not the first one which I supported without a comment. -- Frankie _talk 18:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor source check question

@WP:FLC director and delegates: An idle thought occurred to me as I finished up a source check, that I figured all of us should be in agreement about (and the regular userbase might want to know too) - We have a general consensus that we don't usually close FLCs that we've reviewed, unless possibly if it's a short "just a few quick points before a promote" kind of review (and I haven't seen much of that since I started, now that we have more closers). The question was: how do we all feel about someone closing an FLC that they gave a source check to? My vote: I'm fine with it. --PresN 21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're probably right 99% of the time. The only time I'd feel reticent about closing is if there has been something contentious in the source review. That happens very infrequently, but it does happen from time to time. – SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Someone has to do these reviews, and we're not getting many of them at the moment. I trust the delegates to maintain their objectivity, and I'd like to think that I can do the same. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

List of counties in Hawaii

This list has merely 5 entries and is an FL. It was promoted way back in 2007 and doesn't seem to meet the current criteria.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Skr15081997: Hmm. On one hand, yes, 5 items. On the other hand, it's a fully complete instance of a set of 50 (counties of {state}). On the gripping hand, it could definitely be improved- in order to balance out the small table it needs more text information (like, wow, Kalawao is a historical leper colony and its own county?), there's no indication that it's been kept up to date, and the references need work. I'd post a message on the talk pages of the wikiprojects it's under, and if there's no response in a couple weeks, take it to FLRC proper. --PresN 15:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Director's note

Hello everyone. I am an accountant in real life and am entering my busy season just now. Work demands are going to limit my involvement for the next two-and-a-half months. I should be able to continue programming TFL without a hitch, but my ability to do FLC/FLRC closures is going to be severely compromised, and I'm unsure whether I will be able to do reviews in the near-future. Can I count on the delegates and the rest of the FL community to pick up my slack for a while? Thanks to all who do so. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually coming out of a busy period at work (programmer), so I'm in. --PresN 00:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No probs. Have fun with the year end! - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Source check requests

• I've reverted the strike of three source reviews. The first one I looked at (Charlize Theron filmography) is not a good review and I spotted an inconsistency the moment I glanced at the page - and that was without doing a proper review. I'll try and get to these shortl, but I'm overstretched in RL at the momet. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we just strike/remove these from the list as we do them? Harrias ^talk 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Strike them, a delegate will drop them as they keep the list updated. (in case the review isn't adequate, like the one the other day.) --PresN 15:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the review to the Closure log, as it seems a logical place for it. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Having moved the "Source reviews needed" list into The closure log, I'm now having second thoughts about that location. Would the list of reviews sit better there, or would they be better in the backlog list of nominations urgently needing reviews? (I promise I won't try and move it again afterwards!) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Backlog might make more sense, since it's where the other "needs review" bits are. --PresN 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It would cause the requests to appear on the main FLC page, which would be a plus. Either way, we need to get more source reviews so that we can process articles through FLC more efficiently. I'm more concerned about that than where the requests list is. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Little Mix/archive1

As this has three supports and no outstanding issues, can I nominate List of songs recorded by Olly Murs?  — Calvin999 10:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, Yep, no probs with the second listing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Calvin999 12:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mohanlal filmography

Can I now nominate this for FL. Is it look OK ?. It's copy edited by some experienced editors and a peer review is over. --Inside the Valley (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Crisco 1492

Is this user no more an FLC delegate? Speaking of which, I might need help from delegates on this matter. -- Frankie _talk 19:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that there was no announcement as such, and in fact they have been commenting on FLCs as recently as yesterday, I don't know why an IP edit of "no more active in the area" would be taken as authoritative? --PresN 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

April Fools' Day

Hello everyone. We're fast approaching April 1st, which falls on a Friday this year. That means that TFL will have a blurb on that day, and I'm coming up on the time when I have to schedule something. I'm always open to suggestions, but here are a few possibilities:

• List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names – An oddball list from the sports world. If you want a list with a "joke" blurb, I'm confident that I can use my baseball knowledge to come up with an entertaining blurb.
• List of UK hit singles by footballers – A funny list combining sports and music. It does need some accessibility improvements in the tables, but it shouldn't be too big a task should we decide to run this.
• List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art – The trend at TFA has been to have "strange-but-true" blurbs on April Fools' Day. If that's what you want, this is an ideal candidate. It also has the advantage of being a newly promoted FL, and we haven't run that many video game lists lately.

These are merely lists I came up with off the top of my head. If you can think of a good April Fools' candidate, please mention it here. Otherwise, please give me some guidance on which of these lists you would prefer. Editors get particularly angry if April Fools' Day content isn't spot-on, so it's important that we get this right. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• My preference would be for the first of these. I'll have a spin over the list to see if there is anything else that springs to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm thinking the first of these would be ideal; especially in the knowledge that we have a "much disgusted ball tosser" amongst them. GRAPPLE ^X 10:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I decided to run the MLB list, but have discovered that I'm not good at writing funny blurbs. This is what happens when you're the director for too long! Can someone please help me here? A couple sentences are quite good, but the rest need serious work by someone who actually has a sense of humor. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

...a group of baseball players have played major league, dispite not having made a name of themselves... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Given I'm a devout and card-carrying Englishman, I know too little about baseball, (which is a schoolgirls' game here called "rounders", if anyone is interested). As such I've always viewed the game as being a little like 'cricket on speed', and know too little to help, I'm afraid! - – SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Abuse

I can see an abusive comment on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates included in between the "List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium" and "Elmore James discography" nominations. You can also Ctrl+F "slug" to find it. But I am not somehow able to locate it to remove it. Where the hell is it coming from?! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a troll. The 'Tamil slug' that he was referring to is none other than me: [1] —Vensatry _(Talk) 08:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I know whom it was directed to. But even after this edit of yours why is it still seen on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates?!?!?!? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the nomination was cached for you, so you didn't see any updates when viewing the main FLC page. If you still see it, you can purge your cached transcluded pages by clicking here. --PresN 13:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I see... means I don’t now. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the abusive IP editor in question is hopping between addresses, I've protected the nomination page to allow only autoconfirmed editors. There shouldn't be any effect on the actual contributors. --PresN 13:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive2

Hi. Could more folks have a look at this please? There are no conflicts. It is just that this is the second time the discussion was closed because there were no comments. In my opinion, the article is ready for FL. It just seems rather pointless to open a FL discussion, only to be forcefully closed due to lack of comments. Rehman 23:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(@WP:FLC director and delegates: ) --PresN 02:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: FYI, if anyone else was wondering why the Sri Lanka nom wasn't being closed by the bot, (I know SchroCat gave it a shot as well) it was because the lists's talk page template had the nom number as archive3, but the actual nom was archive2. --PresN 02:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update on that - at least we know it wasn't the bot falling over! That seems to be working well, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed the ping when this was re-nominated. I see that the only issue I had with the previous nomination (separate tables needed for different fossil fuels) has now been sorted so I would probably support if it is nominated again. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk page spamming at FLC

• Inside the Valley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm quite concerned about User talk page spamming at FLC for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mohanlal filmography/archive1 by FLC nominator Inside the Valley (talk · contribs).

FLC started at 15:50, 3 March 2016. Immediately after that, Inside the Valley (talk · contribs) spammed user talk pages of no less than at least eighteen (18) users.

This user talk page spamming during an ongoing FLC is inappropriate.

Relevant DIFFs, below:

1. User talk:Skr15081997
2. User talk:Cirt
3. User talk:ChrisTheDude
4. User talk:Krish!
5. User talk:Ruby2010
6. User talk:Krimuk90
7. User talk:IndianBio
8. User talk:SNUGGUMS
9. User talk:Famous Hobo
10. User talk:Rschen7754
11. User talk:MPJ-DK
12. User talk:LavaBaron
13. User talk:Dough4872
14. User talk:Bharatiya29
15. User talk:Yashthepunisher
16. User talk:Jakec
17. User talk:NapHit
18. User talk:Vensatry

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Source reviews needed

So I am about to reveal that I apparently do not pay a lot of attention ;-) but I just now saw that the FLC page has a box marked "Source reviews needed" - never saw that before. Since I am the nominator for one of the articles in there - Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship - I was curious what separates this from the "oldest" list right above it? Also, is there anything I can do to assist in this source review?  MPJ-US  04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As of mid-January, in order to be promoted an FLC nomination needs to have passed a "source review"; lists with several supports but no source review are noted in the "Source reviews needed" section. A source review has 3 components- 1) Do the given sources support the information they are used to cite? (e.g. spotcheck a handful of citations and verify that the information is present in them) 2) Are the citations formatted correctly? 3) Are the sources reliable?

It's shorter than a regular review, but important as many reviewers don't check sources as part of their general reviews. FAC has had a similar requirement for years, so we're just now achieving parity on that front. --PresN 19:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ah I see now, well then I cannot do anything for my own, but I can do a specific source test on the other lists on there.  MPJ-US  21:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes you can, and I hope you and others do so. We don't have many source reviews up for lists at the bottom of FLC, and any reviewing that we do get would be helpful to the process. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Olly Murs/archive1

This has been open for six weeks. Three editors have contributed comments to it, but it is still void of any votes. It's coming to the time where some votes will be needed in order to make a decision.  — Calvin999 16:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the coordinators are aware. We usually let nominations stay open to around 2 months if they don't have a lot of support yet, unless we're all busy like we've been the last few weeks, in which case they get longer. You might consider pinging the reviewers or messaging them on their talk page to consider returning to the nomination to support or oppose. --PresN 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't posting here for the delegates benefit or attention, simply for anyone else looking. I have already pinged the contributing editors.  — Calvin999 16:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

Is there anything wrong with asking users to consider reviewing your nomination after you review theirs? I believe that it keeps nominations from going to trash, but it has remained controversial among some editors. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with this method is the risk that users might agree to give each other soft reviews in exchange for supports. QPQ reviewing has caused a lot of problems at DYK, and I don't want to see similar issues creep into FLC. If there's a trusted editor you want a review from, you're better off leaving a neutrally worded message on their talk page. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course I was referring to a neutral review and not support exchange. Anyway, I do not obligate them to review my nominations, just something I ask them to consider. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Calling all sysops

The nominator of this FLC has requested withdrawal, since it is his second nom in a short period of time. As part of the withdrawal process, we need to have the FLC page deleted. Unfortunately, I lack the bit and cannot do this myself; SchroCat is in the same boat. Would a passing admin mind deleting the page so one of the FLC closers can withdraw the candidacy properly? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? You two aren't? Huh. I'm an admin, for future reference, if we need one in the future. --PresN 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As is Chris, FYI. --PresN 03:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Not that I would want the bit, but I'd be blackballed in minutes if I tried - and rightly so: I wouldn't vote for me either!) I'm surprised Giants isn't: he is good enough to be. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Right. I can delete pages as needed. (Sorry for my lack of comments on nominations; between my doctorate program and a new baby, my plate's been full). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion You All May Be Interested In

Hi all, I have started a discussion here regarding fork lists of the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees list. Discussion regarding this topic occurred here a few years ago at WP:FLC here and is relevant to the failed nomination of List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (FLC discussion here). Since this discussion is relevant to multiple FLCs and editors here are familiar with list guidelines, I thought it best to inform FLC. Any input you may provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

3000!

With the promotion of List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars, there are now 3,000 Featured Lists! --PresN 16:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well done project, and well done to those who keep it ticking over. I'm still thrilled whenever I see an FL on the main page, now twice a week. It's a mile away from where FL was when I first started participating, and it's doing Wikipedia proud. Awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sri Lankan power stations

Giants2008, Both PresN and I have supported the List of power stations in Sri Lanka nomination and Chris was involved in part of it, so this one will have to be a close from you, when you feel the time is right. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Organization Proposal for FLC Page

Having been back for a few months and observing the FLC page, I think a small organizational change could help us assess where we are when it comes to the number of nominations. Right now we have the following structure in the TOC:

1 Nominations

2 Older nominations

Nominations are considered "Older" after 20 days. This was probably done when nominations didn't take nearly as long, so any nomination over 20 days was seen as a high priority. Considering many nominations do not get any comment within 20 days (I just reviewed one that went 6 weeks without one single review), it seems somewhat unhelpful at this point. I propose organizing it the following way:

1 New Nominations

2 Nominations older than 2 weeks

3 Nominations older than 4 weeks

4 Nominations older than 6 weeks

This way when people look at the main page, we can tell quickly how many truly "old" nominations there are, and possibly help focus reviews where they are most needed. It appears the current organizing of nominations is performed by User:FACBot, so I imagine for any change @Hawkeye7 would need to be on-board in order to code it correctly (which I imagine this change wouldn't create any technical issues). @WP:FLC director and delegates: and regular FL reviewers, would this be something you would support? Thanks for any input, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this would bring many advantages to the process. Reviewers know the list is chronological and the majority of users select a list to review not by whether it's in week 3 or week 4, but either a. because it's a subject in which they have an interest, or b. because it's an older nomination—which they know because it's either toward the bottom of the list or on the backlog list at the top of the page. There is nothing that would make me strongly oppose its introduction, but I just don't see the need; I'd be interested to hear what others have to say and if they would find it would change their modus operandi. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• An alternative would be to move the 20 day "older nominations" marker to a later date, a month, maybe, six weeks, to ensure that the ones we're classing as older (and which are their to focus reviewers as to what we need to focus on, are actually the older ones. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a test edit to see what it would look like. Here is the example. @SchroCat, to your last comment I think my main issue is that the 20 days isn't very relevant. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I know 20 days is not relevant any more, which is why I suggested making the "older nominations" marker record at a month or six weeks. I saw the test edit, and I am still unconvinced by any advantages it may bring. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't find the 2/4/6 weeks lines very compelling - besides taxonomy, they don't give much useful information to reviewers or nominators. I agree with Schrocat, though, that 20 days isn't a useful line either. I'd personally move it to 6 weeks- given that we have an informal time limit of 2 months to prove that a nomination is viable in that round, it would be a more useful "hey, nominations below this line are about to be removed if they don't get some real reviews really soon". --PresN 14:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I would be happy with the change of 20 days to something longer! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, 20 days is the number used by FAC. If we think it doesn't work well for us, we could try changing the definition of "older" to one month and see how it works, leaving open the option of moving it to six weeks if necessary. If we had four categories, I fear that editors would just review lists from the oldest category to the exclusion of everything else. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7, per the above, could you get the bot to peg the "older nominations" split at four weeks? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Question on timing

Hi all, after doing a fair number of featured articles, I just tackled a featured list. (I admit, it's a doozy, over 250 entries). What sort of lag time exists here for reviewers to pop by? I put it up Aug 1 hoping it could be done in a month... like a FAC usually is. Can anyone enlighten me on this? I'd like to get started? Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I'm to sure about timing but my short experiences here have helped me realise that reviewing other's FLCs seems to help. If you review another FLC and note that you have an open FLC, others seem happy to review. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Montana, It's normally a two-month process all in, with the majority of activity taking place in the second half (or even the final third) of the process - I see that Jimi Hendrix videography was nominated on 10 July and it is yet to receive any attention, for example. I'll try and swing by yours in the next day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, unlike FAC, which at present seems to be closing most nominations in the 1-2 month phase, mostly towards the end of that period (that's new- a year ago it was 2-3 months), FLC has been in a rut for the past year where things don't generally get closed until they hit 2 months. It's 100% because we're not getting enough reviews- most nominators are not reviewing 3 other lists to balance out the 3+ they get, so we end up with a bunch of 2-review nominations down at the bottom just... hanging out. If your list gets a few solid reviews in the first 2 weeks and a delegate feels it's good to go, then it will get promoted after 2 weeks. That's just not likely, unfortunately. I need to blitz through and review 5-8 from that glut at the bottom of the queue in the next few days to clear it out, but that's really not the way the system should be. Please remember that reviewing other nominations not only means that their nominators are more inclined to review your list (now and in the future), but also that a rising tide raises all boats- if you review list A, then I'm not going to have to review that and will instead review list B, which might be yours. --PresN 02:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd be glad to review, save that I have yet to complete a FL so I fear I don't know what I'm doing! So you are forwarned! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the only way to learn is by doing- any reviews you do will be appreciated, as long as you give it an honest effort to find problems. --PresN 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Valley Metro Rail stations/archive1

@WP:FLC director and delegates: if you wouldn't mind, would one of you close the above nomination asap? I am no longer in the right state of mind to continue to address the comments within the nomination. Please feel free to close with no consensus for promotion, if that is what you think is best. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

I was wondering, anyone feel free to answer, is there any specific format for Bibliographies? I am planning to work on Madonna bibliography and was thinking what specific columns I can have to make it uniform all throughout the list. My perusal of other FLs for bibliographies did not yield much result as most of them are for classic/children authors-poets whose work is huge and cannot conform to a specific format I guess. Any suggestions from the regulars? Just wanted input before I can develop and nominate it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed, any of the @WP:FLC director and delegates: directors please can you take a look at my query? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• There is no one format. I recommend having a look at the numerous featured bibliographies to have an idea of what is usually accepted. The bibliographies of Maya Angelou, Edgar Allan Poe, and Roald Dahl show just how varied it can be. Me, personally, I would probably use a more detailed approach for someone with the relatively light output of Madonna. For someone who has written several hundred books, I'd consider using the approach used at the Maya Angelou list. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi there @WP:FLC director and delegates: , I was wondering based on the above, how does the format for the Coffee table book section look? Don't check the content, just the columns and format. Do you think its sufficient enough? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• The notes seem to pack a good amount of information into a compact format. My one suggestion is to put a dash in the one empty Identifier cell. Other than that, the format looks reasonable to me; granted, bibliographies are not my specialty. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot FLC delegates. Will continue working on it and hopefully nominate it later. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review

Hi, I don't mean to be impatient but can someone conduct a source review for Quentin Tarantino filmography? It's been more than 15 days since I requested for one. Thanks - FrB.TG (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll get there soon. There was a huge pack of 10-15 lists down at the bottom of the queue (below your nomination) that no one has been reviewing, so I've been doing a few reviews/source reviews a day to try to clear it out. Should move up to your nom (currently: position 32/45) soon. --PresN 16:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, my submission has been languishing for a month... want to trade? Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: The Tarantino list already got promoted, actually. Though, your list has an outstanding review from 10 days ago that you haven't responded to, as well as a completed review that the reviewer didn't return to, probably because you didn't {{ping}} them to let them know you were done. --PresN 00:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

{:@Montanabw: If you are still interested, I have another nomination - Taylor Swift videography. You can review that and I'll review yours. FrB.TG (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

PresN, sorry for the foulups, I actually missed seeing that my FLC had been reviewed! (I have 5000 articles on my watchlist, I missed it... YIKES!) Thanks for pointing that out, and mea culpa for getting snippy! Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: No worries; both people missing reviews on their watchlist and nominations falling to the bottom without reviews happens unfortunately frequently, so either case was plausible. I wish there was some way to hook in nomination page edits into the ping functionality instead of the general watchlist- like a super-watchlist. --PresN 00:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata lists

If you are interested in future list generation using Wikidata, please consider taking a look at d:Wikidata:List generation input and providing any comments on d:Wikidata talk:List generation input. --Izno (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Bottom of the page

@WP:FLC director and delegates: We currently have 6 nominations over 2 months old that are ready to be promoted in my opinion... but I've reviewed all 6of them myself. With Giants on vacation and Chris MIA, that leaves them all for SchroCat to close (except that one of them is by SchroCat). With SchroCat leaving soon, this is going to be a problem, which I'll wait till Giants gets back for us to work out longer term, but in the meantime- should we temporarily suspend the rule that we don't promote lists that we have ourselves reviewed, so that I can clear out the bottom of the FLC queue? Or just let them all hang out until one of you guys can get to them? --PresN 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pres, I'm mostly on a wind down, while waiting for reviews to come in on a FAC and my other FLC, so I'll swing by tomorrow to start sorting through the ones you've reviewed. That will get rid of all but mine. If any third party also wants to review the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Raymond Chandler bibliography/archive1 nom, a fourth support would make it easier for Pres to make the close. (Mind you, if anyone also wants to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Josephine Butler bibliography/archive1 while they are about it, that would be great! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --PresN 12:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If required, I can non-admin, non-delegate, non-director look at promoting lists if the need arises. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Two month notice

@WP:FLC director and delegates: (and any other interested parties), I was made one of the FL delegates on 31 October 2013, and—with some pleasing symmetry—I intend to cease my delegate duties on 31 October this year. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It'll be sad to see you go, SchroCat - you've done some great work here! I hope you enjoy your "retirement", and that we'll keep seeing bibliographies coming through here form you! --PresN 12:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work as delegate here, no doubt one of the key contributors who helped improve FLC content especially in regards to following the manual of style and engvar so that it's actually taken seriously as one of the five branches of featured content. Hopefully, by stepping down, it'll allow you more time to submit your own FLCs. Cowlibob (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ditto, my personal thanks for doing such a great job. FLC is alive and kicking, something which would have been considered a running joke (like some other areas of the main page!) a few years ago. When do we go for three lists per week?!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks to you all: it's very much appreciated! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just now getting caught up on what went on during my vacation, and after seeing your future plans I almost wish I hadn't. Someone will have to deal with the larger issues involved at some point, but for now let me say that this will be a great loss to the project, and not just from FLC's perspective. I'll miss reading your work, which is always interesting. If this is it, thank you for your work on the project all these years and please accept my well wishes. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Giants - that's very kind of you. I'll miss the editing bit, but I'll still read the front page daily as I always do, and keep an eye out for the more interesting lists that appear. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Second list

The instructions say Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. I have a list there which has garnered nothing for a few days, but have another one which is in no way at all related to the first which is ready to be nominated. I can understand the caveat if it's to prevent similar lists being mass nominated with similar issues. But I don't have that issue. Can I just do it and nominate the second list? If not, could we get some clarification as to what this ruling is about, it's been in the instructions for many many years.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It's about the burden a nominator gets. Even if you feel you can handle two nominations at the same time, you will not have enough time to fully resolve all issues in both nominations.--Cheetah (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Patently untrue. I used have something like eight or nine GA nominations running concurrently, that was easily managed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was just stating the reason why it was added 8 years ago. It wasn't a true/false statement.--Cheetah (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You said "you will not have enough time to fully resolve all issues in both nominations" which is untrue, as I demonstrated. If you don't think that's a true/false statement then you should think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

First, by saying "you", that statement meant "a nominator", not User:The Rambling Man. Second, you asked for a clarification, I provided it. Now, if you don't like it, create a voting to remove that part. Just stop saying that it's untrue, keep in mind, not everyone is a Superman like you. Just because it's easy for User:The Rambling Man, doesn't mean it's easy for others as well.--Cheetah (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was. I never even implied that. If you write "you" it most usually means "you". If you meant "one" then you should have said so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You said "that was easily managed". You're right, I should have used quotation marks when I wrote that.--Cheetah (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "that" being the multiple nominations, it was easily managed, I dealt with all comments concurrently. I don't see your point. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Should multiple nominations be allowed?

Per the short discussion above, I would like to see the caveat in the instructions which currently say:

Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

replaced with something like:

Users should not add a second featured list nomination if it is similar in nature to another nomination of theirs, or until the other has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

I can well understand not wanting a flood of similar nominations with common problems not being a good idea, but the pace at FLC has slowed significantly with one of my recent nominations taking from 24 May to 9 August to be promoted, despite only a handful of comments. Times have changed, multiple concurrent GA nominations are allowed, there doesn't appear to be a problem with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support my own idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure on the exact wording, but I don't have a problem with multiple noms. Under the current rules, I t's possible to have an FAC (two if co-nomming), two FLCs, a stack of GANs and a few FPCs all running alongside something at PR while also developing another article (I've had that running concurrently, with one GAN, rather than a stack). Most people who nom things know their own limitations of time, etc when coming to the table and those who are experienced in FL writing tend only to need light work on noms, rather than the piles of issues that a newbie may encounter. – Gavin (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the reason for the rule is because the nominator won't keep up with 2 nominations- as Gavin says, you can have multiple nominations split across multiple processes and no one cares. The problem is that if we allow multiple nominations, we're going to go from ~40 nominations at any given time to 60-80, but since we're not adding new people, just nominations, we don't get more reviews to match. So we get a lot more nominations being closed because of lack of activity. --PresN 11:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Yes, one of the main reasons to have this rule is to prevent a glut of noms with similar issues. That scenario doesn't apply for a user like you (TRM), which is why we can always be asked for an allowance to run a second article. You certainly have one in this case if you want it, and I wouldn't be inclined to remove your second nom. That said, given that we are experienced a decline in reviewing, I'm not convinced that opening the floodgates is going to help us. It just seems like the few reviewers we have would be spread across more articles, making it harder for anything to gain enough reviews for promotion. Does this make sense or am I overthinking things? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe to avoid abuse or gaming the system, make it a two-nomination limit? Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I totally support Montanabw's suggestion. Make it a two-nomination limit, no exceptions.--Cheetah (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Additional delegate proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the present time, the Featured List coordinators include one director (Giants2008) and three delegates (PresN, SchroCat, and Crisco 1492) to manage the promotion, delisting, and appearance on the front page Featured List processes. As SchroCat is leaving his position at the end of October, and Crisco has been unavailable for delegate work for some time, we are looking to add new delegates. To fill one slot, the coordinators would like to nominate a specific editor for the position, in the same manner as I (PresN) was nominated in April 2015.

Therefore, it is proposed that FrB.TG is promoted to the role of FL delegate. We feel that they have been a large presence around the process for some time, with 29 Featured Lists to their credit and numerous reviews, and would be a welcome addition to the project.

Timescale: All comments are invited on this proposal, which will run until 23:59, 26 September 2015, UTC. –-PresN 18:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support the addition of FrB.TG to the team: a worthy choice and I'm sure he'll make an excellent delegate. – Gavin (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support goes without saying (but we'll say it anyway) that the delegates would not have proposed him unless we thought he would make a good delegate. --PresN 20:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Frb.TG would be a good addition to the team.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - My appetite to write more FLs has been drastically reduced over the past six months. Yet, I'm concerned about the WP:IDLish (read editor) behaviour that the nominee has exhibited in the recent past: [2], [3]. Additionally, I'm not sure if they understand how WP:CONSENSUS works here, let alone FLCs/FACs - they've always relied on the 'three supports = pass' rule. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was you who would "rather be happy if my review fail" than someone like me review your noms. Now seeing that comment, I don't think I could comment in someone's FLC who thinks that way of me. Anyway, I wouldn't mind not becoming an FLC delegate if someone thinks I'm not good enough. Cheers - FrB.TG (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your responses came before mine: from April and from June. FWIW, reviewing/declining nominations is purely a matter of personal choice, but the same cannot be expected of a "delegate" who is assigned to "handle" certain tasks. —Vensatry _(talk) 12:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I declined that merely because of our not-so pleasant interaction (which you may or may not remember) a few months ago not because I "hate" you or something. And a declination of a certain request to review a nom doesn't mean that I'm partial towards certain editors. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support FrB.TG is a very conscientious editor, and obviously knows the Features Lists arena well. I'm sure FrB.TG would do well in this role. Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support FrB.TG knows FLC inside out and knows how to implement consensus. Another delegate can only be a bonus as it will speed up the system. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per yellow dingo. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose First, starting with his first edit, it was obvious that he had experience in Wikipedia, but he never told anyone what his previous username was. Second, one of his recent edit summaries here suggests to me that he's thinking of retiring from Wikipedia unless he becomes an FLC delegate. The probability of him going AWOL on the project is very high. I simply don't trust him.--Cheetah (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is probably the tenth time that I am being accused of that sockpuppetry crap. I was blocked on my first day (what a welcome, right?) due to some 'misunderstanding' of users. @PresN: I am sorry, but I don't think I can run for this anymore if people keep accusing me of this. Sorry for wasting your time. P.S. should you ever find anything against this user, please let me know. - FrB.TG (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support A friendly editor who is experienced in writing FLs, knows the procedure, and will be a nice refreshment to the team.--Retrohead (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A high calibre producer of FLs. In fact, looking through our past interactions, one of few editors for whom I have supported a FL promotion without any suggestions. (here). However, the response to Cheetah above is concerning, as was the support vote at this FLC: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande/archive1. FrB.TG supported with one minor concern, but the list was later opposed with a number of issues, mostly relating to the prose. The support looked like a possible 'drive-by' support of a list that was in a topic that FrB.TG was active in. On the other hand, that was 18 months ago, and recent reviews seem much more diligent, so maybe it was just a bad day. However, on balance, I'm still more against than for. Harrias ^talk 19:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2016 Featured List Delegate elections

A vote to select new delegates for the featured list candidates process has concluded. Congratulations to new delegate The Rambling Man

With the resignation of SchroCat and long-term unavailability of Crisco 1492, the Featured List project is down to just Director Giants2008 and Delegate PresN. As such, in a repeat of the elections we held in 2013, we are holding the 2016 FL Delegate elections this October. As detailed on the elections page, candidates are invited to submit their candidacy for the two open delegate slots and answer questions from now through October 14, and voting will commence the following two weeks. This is your chance to shape and influence the direction of the FL process and serve in one of the few positions of pseudo-official leadership en.wiki has, and all editors in good standing who are interested in the FL process are welcome to put their hat in the ring. We hope to add a couple great new delegates! --PresN 01:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me add that SchroCat appears to have left us for good (sadly), so we need candidates for the delegate positions even more urgently. Please do consider putting your name up for consideration. The work involved is worthwhile and isn't as time-consuming as you might think. As Pres said, if you want a greater voice in how the FL process will operate in the future, this is a great chance to put your views out there. We're looking forward to working alongside the editors who emerge from the elctions to make the FL process even better going forward. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Is a timeline a list?

• If I may ask, is a timeline a list? Tks in advance.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. An example--Cheetah (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes. We have more than 30 featured already, in a wide variety of subjects. Hurricanes and other storms make up most of them, but there's everything from chemistry to literature. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
      • OK tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Last call for FL delegate candidates

There's 4 more days to nominate yourself as a candidate for FL delegate at the 2016 FL elections, and right now we only have 2 candidates: If anyone else is at all interested in becoming an FL delegate, now is your chance! --PresN 20:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Voting has begun for FL delegate candidates

The voting period has begun for FL delegates in the 2016 elections. To vote for or against our two candidates—Iazyges and The Rambling Man—see the banner at the top of WP:FLC, or head directly to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2016 elections/Vote. --PresN 01:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 FL delegate election concluded

The voting phase of the 2016 FL delegate elections has concluded; congratulations to The Rambling Man, who is returning after a four-year absence to be our newest delegate! --PresN 15:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Congrats, TRM! I'm sure you'll do great work here again as a delegate, just like you did as a director in the past. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bot didn't finish closing promoted FLC

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Masters Tournament Par-3 contest/archive1 was promoted a couple of days ago, but FACBot hasn't yet gotten around to taking it off the main FLC page, even though it did add the star to the article and update the promotion log. How long should we wait before pinging Hawkeye? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and remove it; it got missed in the initial pass because the list's talk page had the FLC page pointing at an FLC that redirected to the real one. Fixing that meant it got picked up in the next pass, but the pulling from FLC step still got missed because the transclusion link is also the redirecting one (List of winners of the Masters Tournament Par-3 contest, instead of Masters Tournament Par-3 contest). --PresN 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC on lists being promoted as GAs

Interested editors may comment on the GA nominations talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 04:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the proposals is to create a new class, Good List, with its own review setup rather than go through the GA process. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

List of James Bond films

I have nominated List of James Bond films for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Transhumanist 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017

Season's greetings! This is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2017 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than eighty users have signed up to take part in the competition. Interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Meghan Trainor/archive1 was created by an editor who was later indefinitely blocked, but wasn't transcluded onto the main FLC page. I'm thinking that, since it never actually appeared at FLC proper, the best course of action is to delete the FLC as routine housekeeping. Naturally, I'm not an admin and will therefore ask somebody with the tools to do the honors. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. –Grondemar 07:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixing article history

Hi! I have tried to fix the FLC article history here for current FL Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna. Seems that the bot had not fixed it; maybe because the old FLC was way too old for it to understand. Can someone fix it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed; you had an invisible character at the end of the date (usually happens if you copy in something from Word or something, but who knows.) --PresN 12:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you review mine, I'll review yours!

This is mine. What is yours? :) --TIAYN (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Will be virtually MIA soon

Hi, everyone. Just like last year, my busy season in real life will hit in a couple of weeks and last for the next few months. I'll be able to keep TFL populated with worthy lists, but may not be doing many FLC closures in the near-future. Please do take up any slack, just as you did last year. And please do as many reviews as you can, so that lists can continue making it through the process in a (somewhat) timely manner. Thanks to the entire FLC community for all that you do. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Roger that! --PresN 02:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Continuously expanding lists

Hi. What is the best way to handle the lists which are continuously expanded every year by 20? Arjuna Award (700) and Sangeet Natak Akademi Award (1200+) has got too many entries. These two lists are expanded by at least 20 entries each year. I am planning to work upon their cleanup and wanted to avoid duplication with the forking. So thought of asking for an opinion? - Vivvt (Talk) 18:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vivvt: The fact that they are continually expanding isn't a problem in and of itself- I have a couple dozen lists that grow by 5-6 each year myself. The problem would be that the lists are too long, and you don't want it to need splitting again every few years. Most yearly award lists are broken up by category- so, Sangeet Natak Akademi Award would split into Sangeet Natak Akademi Award (Hindustani music), Sangeet Natak Akademi Award (Carnatic music), etc., assuming that Sangeet Natak Akademi Award (Music) would still be too long (if it isn't, that would likely be preferable just to keep the number of lists down). Arjuna Award, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be given in categories, but to athletes in general (who can then be subdivided into what sport they play), with some of the sports having only a few and some with a lot. That one therefore could only really be split into chunks by time or by name (military awards tend to split on last name if they can't do by reason, for example) - however, given that it's a yearly award rather than a "whenever a reason arises" award, I'd split it into Arjuna Award (1961–1989), Arjuna Award (1990–present), or into smaller chunks if you feel you need to (like per-decade). --PresN 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for the suggestion. I will work toward this suggestion. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)