Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List

Portal:List edit

The Portal List is a top-level reader navigation tool linked from the Main Page. As noted in the featured list criteria, it is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed. It has all the essential style elements and uses images well. The primary objection probably will be that it is not in article space. However, because it links to portals, which themselves are high-level navigation guides to articles, this list is one of the most important Wikipedia article space navigation tools for readers. Rfrisbie^talk 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another objection probably will be that this list does not contain a reference section. The reply would be that links on this particular list are not appropriate because portal style does not require references. Such references will be in the articles for those portal sections that link to them. Rfrisbie^talk 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates. Renata 18:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a portal, it's a list. Rfrisbie^talk 20:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Portal namespace. Renata 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And?... The page functions as a list, not a portal. How does the namespace location disqualify it from being considered here? Rfrisbie^talk 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FLC is for lists in the article namespace. Please take this to Featured Portals. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the featured list ctriteria restricts membership to those in article space. Taking this to featured portals is pointless. Take a look at the page. It's not a portal. It's a list. It would be of abasolutely no value in illustrating what a featured-quality portal could look like. To illistrate the folly of that, if it became a "featured portal," it would be displaying itself in the featured portal box in the upper right-hand corner. Rfrisbie^talk 02:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks and feels like a portal for me, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 06:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with the above. Here are some comments anyway: There are differences between this list and the Directory. A number of entries are in one and not the other (mostly there are more in the directory). The grouping/hierarchy is different and should be standardised. I think you should probably go for one more level of heading in the situations where there are many portals in one set of parentheses. The Natural and Social sciences have been split yet are just one portal - I think it give the impression there are two portals. Claiming "the references are in the linked articles" doesn't work for us FL folk. But it is irrelevant here since this portal/list isn't really claiming any significant worldly facts other than the hierarchy (countries in Europe, etc). Colin°^Talk 09:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this nomination isn't going anywhere but out, so thanks for your input anyway. However, it's unfortunate people here have such a narrow conception of lists. IMHO, it indicates this process is flawed with little or no interest in addressing this shortcoming. Apparently, for the most part, this process can't tell the difference between a list and a portal. Nor can it get beyond summarily rejecting lists that contribute to article space that don't happen to reside there. Rfrisbie^talk 15:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate the nominator has such a narrow conception of consensus. IMHO, it indicates his logic is flawed, with little or no interest in accepting s/he may be wrong... This has come up before, refer to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shortcuts where most of the same objections apply, and please bear in mind that pontificating will take you nowhere. Thank you. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 16:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rune.welsh. Actually, I read the link and other featured candidate material before I nominated the page. That's how I was able to anticipate the main objections before they were posted by others. My point is simply that I don't buy the consensus expressed here. That is not "pontificating" any more than any other minority viewpoint is "deviant." If I decide to continue playing this game, I'll simply adjust to the rules. But make no mistake about it, being disqualified from this process in no way establishes the lack of quality for many Wikipedia pages. Rfrisbie^talk 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's much of high quality on Wikipedia which is disqualified from various types of featuring. That was the primary driver behind featured lists in the first place - because there was an awareness that there were many excellent lists which didn't qualify as featured articles. I agree with others that it looks and feels more like a portal than a list to me, but regulars at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates might disagree. Perhaps there's a need for Wikipedia:Other featured content, for excellent pages like this which don't quite fall under articles, lists, portals or pictures. (Good luck, though, drafting and getting consensus for Wikipedia:Other featured content criteria!) --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]