Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 23

Why are nominations so rarely archived?

The WP:FLC header reads "Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." What seems to happen in practice, is "each nomination will last, no matter what, until it is either ready for promotion or completely impracticable to keep open". At the moment at the bottom of the FLC page, we have:

• Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, which is over three months old and has a single prose support.
• List of European Le Mans Series champions, which is over three months old and has a single prose support.
• Portland Trail Blazers all-time roster, which is over 12 weeks old and has two prose supports.
• List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress, which is over 12 weeks old and has no prose supports.
• List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2016) which is over 11 weeks old and has two prose supports.

I have seen this before when looking at FLC. It seems to me that by keeping these old nominations open way longer than they should be, the process's reviewing capacity is in effect diluted. If a soft time limit (say two months, like FAC) was actually enforced, I think FLC would start to run much smoother. As it stands, only seven current nominators have bothered to review other nominations. That is quite frankly pitiful for a collaborative project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's because, in good months, we usually have about 30 nominations active, of which maybe 1 is more than 10 weeks old. And those neglected nominations do eventually get reviewed (though sometimes I do a review+promotion). In bad months, however, we end up like we are now... and for some reason this happens every December-February.

More specifically, it's because I feel bad archiving a nomination solely because not enough people have reviewed it yet- that's not the fault of the list or nominator. FAC is pretty aggressive about it, but FLC hasn't been since maybe 2017. I do agree, however, that it's currently out of hand. --PresN 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if we put a note in the nomination instructions encouraging people to optionally review other nominations? This would be similar to WP:GAN/I#N2, which notes: (Optional): Consider reviewing two nominations for each one that you nominate. This does not imply quid pro quo. This simply means that helping to review articles will help the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've recently been trying to do at least a QPQ for my nominations, and did a review for my newest nom earlier today. -- ZooBlazer 06:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably should be doing a few since you need 3 (including someone reviewing sources) for a list to pass. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• There's a few regulars who's FLCs I never review because I've never once seen them do reviews for others. They're well within their rights not to, but it seems unfair to expect others to review your work without reviewing anybody else's. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Some days I go through the list and see what I can review and find that what I want to review is very. There's definitely more lists that I could review, but I find myself completely unwanting to due to never seeing a few experienced users do reviews for others. Similarly, there are specific reviewers, such as ChrisTheDude, who do a lot of great quality reviews and I always want to rush to review their lists as a result. Really there's no reason that nominators should have 20+ FLs and not be doing at least a couple reviews for others. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: I actually did a source review on List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2016) and supported based on that, not on prose. Additionally, I think it's relevant to note that List of European Le Mans Series champions and Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University have source reviews done. That's usually the part of the process that we end up waiting longer for in my experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  FAC has Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests, is there such a thing at FLC too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items which has a source reviews needed section. From what I've observed articles are usually only added there when they're waiting on a source review for promotion, as opposed to waiting for more overall reviews as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot promotions

Is it possible to have the bot link the article name in the edit summary when it does a promotion?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably? I guess you could ask Hawkeye7, who created and maintains the bot, if you want; the FLC team does not control it. --PresN 05:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done This change has been implemented. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

List with some missing info

Is either List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year or List of Men's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year a viable candidate with a table that is incomplete?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Neither list seems to explain why the table is incomplete, which makes it hard to say if the lists are viable with these gaps. Also, I went looking for the 2006-07 men's gap, and this not only has it but calls it "NAIA Division II", which doesn't match what the lede says it was called at the time. --PresN 21:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:PresN, I am starting to look for missing refs. At the List of Academic All-America Team Members of the Year list, I found one ref to verify the list of all previous winners. Is that sufficient or do I need to find refs for each year with details on the qualifications each winner had to win in his/her/their year?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That source appears to have the information that's actually in the table, so it's sufficient. --PresN 21:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Proposal to Add to the Featured List Criteria

Centralizing the discussion. Please see the above link for my proposal regarding the WP:FLCR. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University/archive1

@PresN You have closed the FLC arbitrarily:

This nomination has been open for four months; in that time it's gotten one support and one oppose

As I see, there are two supports and one oppose.

especially after AirshipJungleman29 said that you should check the prose as well as the infobox and no edits were made there

I believe the edits were made, also mentioned so on the FLC page with  Fixed note, along with pinging the said user. Also, I do not see the said user saying anything about prose. Rather, they specifically said ...issues with the infobox alone... I haven't even checked the prose or the list itself

What does "NIRF ranking of the university dropped from third to sixth after five years" even mean?

I have answered this to an FLC comment earlier.

It would have been great if you would have

• acknowledged the two supports;
• acknowledged that edits were made after the opposer's comments, and that they did not return to provide constructive feedback thereafter, thereby impeding the process;
• placed the onus and responsibility on the opposer, rather than outrightly rejecting FLC with final comments;
• understood that this article is written in Indian English;
• given this editor a chance to reply before closing the FLC.
• placed the questions/feedback in closing remarks as comments/feedback during the 4 month period of this FLC (in which you have been active indirectly).

Thank you, Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You did get two supports, but at the end of the day, there was not a consensus for promotion and there was still apparently a fair bit left to actually review. 4 months is a really long time for a nomination to stay open and we don't leave them open indefinitely. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You also didn't mark the references as dead, as requested by Airship. I'm noticing a number of authors missing from references when they're listed at the sources as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hey man im josh, thanks for the reply. I believe all references are Archived, is there a bot to check and mark refs as dead? Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Go to the page history of the article and click the fix dead links button to run the bot to check for them. -- ZooBlazer 04:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks, it runs the IAbot, which has been run. I was looking for a bot to scan/search for dead urls and mark them as such. Anyway, I have manually search and marked the faulty dead urls as such. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

there was not a consensus -- 2 supports (after detailed and continued discussions) and 1 oppose (without the opposer returning to provide comments/feedback on action taken/edits made) is no consensus? Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That's correct. You need to receive support from more than 2 people, typically at least 3. The opposer gave a ton of feedback, some of which you hadn't done, such as marking dead links, but they basically said there's so much wrong with it they don't want to get into a back and forth pointing out every issue because it would take too much time. There's also the issue of the list still needing portions reviewed after nearly 4 months. So, even if they didn't say "oppose" and just gave feedback, you still wouldn't have had the list entirely reviewed yet or have had enough support to pass. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, if a nomination has been open for more than 2 months, something has gone wrong-either not enough reviewers have reviewed it, or there are still significant problems that are stopping people from supporting or leading them to oppose. As you can see in the section above, some people would prefer if I was much more aggressive in closing stalled nominations, instead of leaving them open for 4 months like I did this one. FAC, for example, will close a nomination if nothing happens to it for 2 weeks, which isn't something I do here.

In any case, the nomination needed to be closed as it was way over time by any measure. AirshipJungleman29 did not return to the nomination, so I could not say if his oppose was no longer justified to him, so as FLC delegate I could only say if it seemed justified to me as the closer. And what I saw was that he opposed on the infobox alone, and said to re-check the prose, and yet no edits seemed to have been made to the prose, and I was able to see multiple issues in the prose and table in 30s of looking. That's not the kind of thing I'd expect for a nomination that had been reviewed by multiple people and been open for months. I listed them out as an explanation of why I was closing it; it wasn't a full review, which is why I did not wait for your response.

So, could I promote it? No. Could I let it keep lingering on for further months? No. So, I closed it. Closing a nomination is not a condemnation of you as an editor or even of the list, but just a statement that it does not have a quick path to promotion at this time. Feel free to renominate it whenever, but please make sure to fix any issues that you can before nominating.

To respond to some of your specific points: It was one prose support, the other was for images; I know they didn't come back after the oppose vote, which is why I had to evaluate if their concerns were addressed myself; and the onus is always on the nominator to make the list as good as they can, not on the reviewers to justify themselves to the nominator's satisfaction. --PresN 13:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)