Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 21

Closure

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.

---

Continuing the discussion from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)/archive1.

@Giants2008: I consider the closing coordinator to be involved, going by this discussion: Talk:Erich_Raeder#Fellgiebel: "Please stop taking it upon yourself to degrade the quality of articles. Thanks!" I take this as being indicative of support for the sources being used in the article under discussion and a general opposition to the editing I've been doing.

Separately, the discussion was still on-going. Several editors have commented (including recently) but have not stated whether or not they supported or opposed the promotion. I believe they should have been pinged to see if their issues have been resolved satisfactorily.

Overall, I feel that the discussion was closed prematurely and by an involved coordinator. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Giants is on severely reduced time for the next few months; I'll review the nomination's closure soon. --PresN 00:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, now I see that he commented there beforehand. Well, I'll hold off then unless requested. --PresN 00:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I may note that User:Peacemaker67, an editor strongly in support of promotion, found the time to comment on my question of 19 January 2016 only after the dicussion had already been closed.Diff That demonstrates that the discussion was still on-going.--Assayer (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider that was ongoing discussion. It is apparent that some editors will post walls of text until they get the outcome they prefer. I don't think our processes have to accommodate that approach. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you did not consider that discussion ongoing, why did you decide to reply shortly after closure? That's, of course, if you did not just wait until closure to preclude any reply from my side thus effectively stifling the discusion.--Assayer (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not intend to stifle discussion, I thought it had draw to a close (or was going around in ever-decreasing circles). I didn't think there was any point discussing it further. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate closings

I want to state procedural objections to promotion of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm). First, I would like to congratulate the nominator for addressing some very valid concerns I commented about. However, "just a consensus to promote" is not valid reasoning to promote. The process of promoting "must be taken seriously", with all objections and suggestions followed through with, that means to a resolution. We have "a set of rules" that can be read at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, as well as previous consensus on other lists. This includes

• "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.".

The featured list director, or his delegates should only base a promotion on the criteria that "all" objections have been dealt with, according to procedures. This include such things as that the burden of improvements fall to the nominator. Some suggestions for this are found at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#Supporting and objecting.

• • "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider."

Any comments for improvement should thus be dealt with, or a conclusion on that point determined, and not ignored, which makes a nomination an official review, or the process will just end up biased. The reason for a nominator to acknowledge or comment on reviews is so the process can lead to a possible promotion after objections or comments have been dealt with. This is where the last sentence above becomes important in the review process;

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

PLEASE do not make promotions of nominations a rubber stamp. The burden of promoting is relegated to the featured list director, or his delegates, based on a set of criteria, not political or personal, but on the quality of the lists according to standards. If a nominator does not follow through with the consensus approved criteria, then note that to the nominator, and if this is not followed then fail the nomination on that point. It should remain the burden of a nominator to follow suggestions to achieve a promotion.

This article is part of a larger "set of lists". I looked at "A" and it is a featured article that has a bunch of blue links that link back to the article itself, which undermines our process of linking, showing there is an article where none really exists. Clicking on a link should not return someone back to that same page so this article, "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)", is now better than that one.

Linking: is reportedly an important aspect to "bind the project together into an interconnected whole". We have a lot of articles, divided by alphabetical order, and there should be a link, explanatory section, "Main article" under a "Recipients" section, or at least a "See also" section linking them to a main list such as List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients or an appropriate class section. I would expect to see something like this on any article and certainly one considered "Featured".

There should be disambiguation pages for any articles split by alphabet. If one was to type in the search area List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (B), not knowing they were split, the result is a search page. This article is at the bottom of that list and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Bn–Bz) is number 7 on the next page. It seems this could be better handled.

Conclusion: Base a conclusion to promote or not promote on the "whole picture" and not a !vote consensus. If a point is brought up, discuss that point to a conclusion, and if it seems arguments are just biased then note that also. This means we should only promote an article when all valid areas of concern have been met. An editor that has objections should be considered, noted by improvements, questions, and comments, that result (or should result) in a reconsideration of the recommendation. If an editor makes valid points that are dealt with, and does not return for any number of reasons (In my case I would have had to keep checking the article because there were no follow up comments), then the nominator should seek a change of opinion. That is how a nominated article will actually pass an official review and a valid promotion that will last. Please note that there is no "time-limit". Thank you and keep up the good work, Otr500 (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to have been notified about this discussion. In short, promotion of lists does rely on consensus, and in actual fact, the walls of text that have been offered do nothing other than actually detract from any outstanding issues. It is perfectly reasonable to assess that the community believes a list to be at featured standard, and simply put, to consider the wishes of the community over the wishes of individuals who clearly are not in agreement with the community. Of course, if the community no longer wish for me to make such decisions, that's fine too and I'll gladly step away from the role. As for any attempt to embroil me in some kind of "involved" argument, that's nonsense too. I objectively assessed the comments at the nomination and found a consensus to promote. I understand that's not how everyone wants it to be done. That's all there is to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow. That was an impressive wall of text that manages to spend basically no time at all talking about if this particular nomination was closed correctly, talks a heck of a lot about other pages as if they have any bearing on this nomination, and then tries to shame TRM for "rubber-stamping" and rushing the close based solely on the fact that he didn't agree that you can keep a discussion alive forever just by posting walls of text over an over and never agreeing. This was an inappropriate and inappropriately-written comment. --PresN 12:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned if consensus is being determined by the the wishes of the community over the wishes of individuals who clearly are not in agreement with the community. First, because a community, particularly a community of volunteers, is made up of nothing else than individuals. More far reaching definitions tend to be social constructs, i.e., imagined communities. Second, because I do not really like the collectivist and disciplinarian spirit which speaks out of that statement. Third, because consensus is then effectively based upon the will of an in-group of individuals instead upon collegial exchange of arguments among peers. In this case the sparse reasoning makes it virtually impossible to discern, why the closing editor thought that certain concerns were not actionable or reasonable, for example, the issues of RS and POV, i.e., the praise that is being heaped upon a certain source by a selection of quotes from private letters only to be found on the author/publisher's website, who put it there to promote his book. --Assayer (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, once again, consensus that this list met the FL criteria was there for me. So I promoted the list. It's that simple. Once again, if you don't like the way I did it, or the way the process works, then please feel free to do something about it, but I would advise that it's done with brevity and clarity rather than heaps of text walls. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions

Here are the concerns regarding the close:

1. The discussion was still on-going, with one of the responses coming in after the closure occurred: diff.
2. The closing editor The Rambling Man noted that "actionable comments have been actioned". I disagree with this assessment as many comments, including the one referenced in the diff above, had not been addressed by the time of the close.
3. The nominator has not attempted to engage with the comments by Otr500 at all, as can be seen in the Comments by otr500 section, even though the editor has visited the nomination page several times afterwards. The oppose vote that I lodged was not addressed by the nominator either. This clearly created an expectation that the discussion was on-going.

Since Giants2008 suggested that the discussion be moved here, hopefully he can review the matter. Given the contentious nature of both the discussion and the close, it may be a good idea to reopen the discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments coming in after closure is commonplace, and should be discouraged, per the template. I understand you disagree with me, and the walls of text somehow attempt to back that up, but actually it makes little difference as my assessment of community consensus is what's important here. That you believe the nominator failed to address a section (a wall of text) from one specific user is interesting but ultimately nothing more than that. It doesn't impact my assessment of community consensus, which was to promote the list. So, in conclusion, no need to re-open the nomination or the "discussion" (which had become TLDR). Thanks so much! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Wall of text" has been brought up seven times in this discussion; this is getting a bit repetitive :-) . In any case, I have concerns that the list, as promoted, does not represent Wikipedia's best work, due to NPOV, RS and OR issues, and even WP:V. For example, the article states, in the Wikipedia voice:

• Scherzer's book has been described as a "masterpiece" by Prof. Dr. Franz W. Seidler of the Bundeswehr University Munich.

References

By the time Seidler provided the endorsement, he had been retired from the University for 9 years, and describing him as a professor "of" the university is misleading. This objection had been brought up during the discussion, but not addressed.

Since Giants2008 suggested that the discussion be moved here, hopefully he can review the matter and advise on how to proceed. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Giants has stated he's not going to do anything about this. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: K.e.coffman's arguments were explicitly supported by at least two other editors. I had raised general concerns about the lead section of this particular and other lists of that kind beforehand, which another user (in support of promotion) described as I think that MisterBee has perhaps gone a bit overboard on showing that his work has academic acceptance. And Otr500 had still other concerns. That makes five, while five, maybe six editors were in favor of promotion. Given your argument I would like to know, a.) if the concerns mentioned are not actionable and why, or b.) if I (and the other critical users) should not see ourselves as part of the community, but maybe as individual, specific users just producing "walls of texts". It would also imply the suggestion to abtain from such discussions in the future. Because that seems to be in accord with your earlier comment about K.e.Coffman's editing: You appear to be strafing through these kinds of articles implementing a style guide of your own, dismissing prose, removing external links, destroying references, and yet there's no actual consensus to do any of it. Thanks. --Assayer (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said when the FLC closed, I'm not inclined to revisit the FLC or reopen it. Unlike what one of the editors said above, a consensus for promotion doesn't necessarily mean that every comment by every editor has been addressed. Disagreements about various elements of an article are common throughout the site, and articles at FAC/FLC/GAN are not exempt from such debates. As closers, we have to weigh whether a particular comment should prevent promotion if unaddressed. For example, I opposed at a recent FLC that already had several supports, because I found close paraphrasing/plagiarism; the nominator never made any fixes. In that case, the issue was so severe that the closer couldn't promote the list, even though it had a lot of backing. In your case, there has been an ongoing dispute about the reliability of sourcing in this field. A glance at a few of the RSN discussions shows sharp disagreements, and it's hard for me to say there's a consensus one way or the other. Therefore, it's hard for us to say the presence of certain sources should be a disqualifier when we have a larger number of other editors at FLC telling us the sources should be considered acceptable. Your arguments have to be really strong to overcome a clear numerical disadvantage, and I'm not convinced that's the case here. Assayer, you never explicitly opposed (unless I missed it), which was a mistake on your part. Us closers can't read a user's mind; you have to tell us that you oppose promotion with a reason, just like editors whose issues are resolved have to announce support for us to count it as part of consensus. As for issues like the "masterpiece" quote, if that is really such an issue, someone here could be bold and fix it, as even featured content can still be improved.

To quickly address another topic, while I'll refrain from calling some of the posts "walls of text", I do think the case of the opposers may have been hurt by the length of the posts. What we could have used at the FLC was commentary from one or more regular FLC reviewers who aren't involved with the military history project, who could have provided an outside perspective. My belief is that they were turned off by the length of the discussion, and the appearance of an outside dispute that had been brought to FLC. From my perspective, it made me want to avoid reviewing it, and I usually like taking a look at topics that don't commonly appear here. I only have so much time, and I'd rather spend it helping editors who aren't receiving much attention for their work; I also don't care for potential drama, and I'm not alone in that regard. For future discussions, whether here or elsewhere, please do consider shortening them to avoid the appearance of this effect, which is real and annoys many editors. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. Now shall we all move on to other things? I certainly will. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Fair enough. As a user mainly active in the German Wikipedia the concept of consensus is alien to me. In a German FLC, the closer is advised to explain his reasoning, i.e., how he weighs certain arguments, and if it is likely to be controversial, he may ask for a second opinion from another closer. A simple "there's a consensus to promote this", won't do. I also thought that the issue with the lead section had already been dealt with consensually in the MilHist project, but that notion apperently was premature.[1] So it's interesting to see how the concept of consensus is used time and again to streamline discussions and silence opposition. But, on the other hand, there are 29 lists of that kind and if that's what exemplifies "Wikipedia's very best work", so be it.--Assayer (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The same German Wikipedia which summarily posts whatever to the main page without any need to reference it, even in the cases of BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing to acknowledge issues or problems and not count any opposition as combatants or "the enemy". There are procedures that should be followed to ensure that articles (which include lists) are really "the best of the best". This list had been referred to as "excellent" before I made comments that were addressed by @MisterBee1966:, who does show a genuine interest in getting articles to the highest standard. After I made comments @Peacemaker67: stated "I strongly disagree with pretty much everything that has been said in criticism of this list (and the rest of these lists)". I don't know what might be excluded from pretty much everything but come on. Look at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A) and List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) (both feature lists), with all the names linking back to the same articles, and red links that on one number more than 13%, as opposed to this one now. On one there were no listed criticisms yet some aspects deviate from guidelines concerning blue links that states, "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article).", as well as red links

That is a reason for Wikipedia:Peer reviews and featured article candidates instructions that state "It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.". It also includes "If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature". I would have known that improvements were made allowing either a change of objection or offering additional comments. This would include when actionable objections have not been resolved (either by discussion and resolution, or by comments why such criticism is not valid), which means that "just" consensus as a vote (or !vote) is not as important as resolving any "actionable objections". This would include that policies and guidelines are followed, including FA criteria as well as Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. This article is more in line than the other two listed but there are still unaddressed objections even it some, most, or all of them, are just "procedural".

When I read these comments it can not be misunderstood that it would cause concerns. @K.e.coffman: may very well be considered a "problem child" but unless some valid reasoning is presented to have some community ban, or at the least a discussion as to why certain actions are accepted (I don't know--maybe even a RfC) it is not appropriate to just consider all of his comments junk to be blanket disregarded. I haven't looked at any of these but apparently there are concerns with some editors. Bringing these concerns to light are far better than what can be given the appearance of "secret" communications. If certain supposed issues are brought up by anyone, that has been dealt with, then refer to those discussions so that other editors can follow the links.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2012/Op-ed gives some instructions that include Responding to reviewers and this was not allowed. There are even instruction to post to a reviewers talk page if a revisit was not noted. It also includes: "That said, you certainly don't need to agree with all the comments left by reviewers. If you disagree with a comment, politely explain why (and, where appropriate, give an example of a comparable high-quality article which uses whatever it is you prefer). Most reviewers are willing to be convinced that your approach is superior to what they have suggested.". These are instructions to address objections for a reason which is to ensure that a promoted article is the "best of the best", and that reviewers are acknowledged, which would at the very least not cause editors to shy away from reviews necessitating comments like "Is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers?", as surely that makes sense?

@The Rambling Man: I do not care to enter a discussion about your being the director (I don't want the job), or any involvement (or lack thereof) of @Giants2008: but I would like to suggest everyone read my comments with an open mind and see that valid concerns should not be dismissed, just because, and that reviews be allowed to run to a conclusion according to the very procedures of the project. My comments (considered a wall of text) was after the closing, not a part of it so couldn't have been of any consequence to the closing, but there are very valid points to my following comments there just as there certainly are here, so I hope at least some of these are considered in the future. Otr500 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please note the previous comment regarding WALL OF TEXT. This isn't going to change anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• You do not care about valid concerns? That is interesting, and not appropriate as a director. The good news is that consensus will likely change as will up-coming elections. A better thing is that other editors will look at these comments, and that secret closed door emailing is not appropriate. Dismissing valid concerns of editors, acting according to the procedures of the project, will lead to future promotions will only be relegated to the few "involved" because other editors with valid concerns will know they do not matter. At the very least your comments that everything is alright and everyone in opposition is wrong, will eventually lead to re-examination of certain nominations. Your condescending replies that "This isn't going to change anything" (not even correcting promotions with clear issues?) will more than likely prove to be a wrong assumption. Since my comments are of little or no importance I would suggest reverting those edits that resulted in response to my comments.

I will not be a part of such fundamentally wrong dealings, and dismissal of valid comments because they are at odds with your thinking. You have a nice life, and prematurely promote as many as you like because I will not take part in any of these kangaroo proceedings. You can respond to make sure you have the last word, or to make yourself feel better, but others can see what is going on, and I am done with this. Otr500 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2017 (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.

Running a weekly FL in the TFA slot on the Main Page

Please see this post. This started as a proposal to re-run TFAs, but discussion has mostly been about running a FL in the TFA slot instead, maybe once a week. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about opening a second FLC

{{@FLC}} Hello, I have a quick question about the FLC process. I currently have an FLC active for Private Practice (season 1), which has three support votes and is currently in the queue for a source review. I was wondering if I could open a second FLC for List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone while my other FLC is still active? According to the FLC guidelines, "[u]sers should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" so I believe that it would be okay, but I just want to double-check first. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Review trade?

I've currently got my first FLC nominated: List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication. The nomination has gotten a couple suggestions, which I have implemented, but it hasn't gotten any in-depth reviews yet. I can't help but think is due to the sheer size of the article and the amount of time a review would take. So just throwing it out there, if anyone does a more in-depth review of my nomination I will happily review any nomination of your choosing in return. Freikorp (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Tove Lo/archive1

Please note that I have already supported at this FLC and am therefore conflicted out of closing it. One of the delegates will have to do the job here. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Leo Carrillo on stage and screen

The article heavily relies on IMDB, which is not considered a RS. I had mentioned this problem at the article's talk page almost two years ago, but it didn't get any response. I recently pinged the editor involved in its FLC, again I didn't get any response. Please do the needful. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with FLC? If you wish to nominate it for review, WP:FLRC is the place to air your concerns, we're not going to do that for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yash, I echo what TRM says. While I don't blame you for posting here as FLRC's talk page isn't nearly as busy as this one, you're better off just nominating the list at FLRC if you feel it doesn't meet FL standards. My general experience as a Wikipedian is that you're usually better off trying to make a needed edit yourself rather than waiting for somebody else to do it, since you never know when another editor will get around to it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and Maile66 obviously had their reasons for removing your post two minutes after you added it, without comment or edit summary. Suggest you formally nominate it for review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-automatic archiving process

In case people haven't seen it, there's now a WMFLabs tool, linked to from all Page Histories (via "fix dead links"), that with (almost) one click will archive every reference on a page. Nearly instantaneously- like, 5-10 seconds. Given that it's so easy to do, and so easy to find, @WP:FLC director and delegates: I'm considering making archiving links a requirement as part of the source review process- I haven't pushed for it before because it can be a huge hassle to do manually, no matter the benefits, but if it takes <30 seconds to do via a bot then it's hard to ignore. What do you two think? --PresN 03:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

404 not found? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started using it here. You have to do an OAuth login first, which is probably why the other URL didn't work. As well as "analysing" the page you need to click the box for "add archives to all URLs".— Rod ^talk 05:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

However in the case of Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset it only does the links in the lead rather than those in the table.— Rod ^talk 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a decent tool with limitations... If we could get a "raw list" of WP:FL then we could submit a bot request to run over the 3000+ FLs and archive links (although wih the caveat that Rod's noted, possibly excepting refs in tables...) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet found a way to "add archives to all URLs" if you do a big list - all it does is add archive versions for broken links rather than doing it for all URLs. This may be a feature I've not found yet for submission of lots of articles at the same time.— Rod ^talk 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, all the manual ones I'm doing are brilliant. Maybe it's a feature request, or maybe there's another reason why the Bot won't work on batches to that extent, possibly because it could occupy the bot for hours on a single job (one task can take 20 seconds, and up to 5,000 articles can be queued - nearly 28 hours...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Rodw I tried reporting the failure to archive refs in a table as a bug, but failed. Three times. Perhaps you could try it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite its few limitations, the tool appears very helpful. If one can add archive-links for 50 or more ULRs in one edit, that's commendable work. Saves a lot of time. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I went to report that it is not working in tables but the interface has been disabled.— Rod ^talk 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

TRM let Cyberpower678 know on his talk page, it's a bug and it's next in the queue after what he's working on now. --PresN 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, I'm not a big fan of forcing people to do this. There are always links that the bot can't archive (because of robots.txt), and I've noticed some issues with how the bot handles date formatting. It has a tendency to add unwanted spaces in single-digit dates, and I saw one article in which it recently added archival dates in a completely different date format than what was in the rest of the article. Of course, I'm probably just biased against it because it's jamming my watchlist with edits that I'll have to check later. :-( Anyway, let's see how archiving the table references works before considering this some new requirement. I foresee a high risk of losing editors who don't want to do this if we try mandating it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rodw it's not working on your particular article(s) because they use a funky template which incorporates the references, rather than "standard" citation templates. Fair enough, I don't suppose the bot can see its way through every feasible template implementation of references.... I guess if we use such templates, we have to accept that manual insertion of archive links is the only solution at this time. Meanwhile, all other tables which use templates such as {{cite web}} work just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The use of Template:EH listed building row seems be be the standard for listed building (and ancient monument) lists. Is that the issue or is it the Template:NHLE one which I have been strongly advised to use, after the format of URLs for Images of England was changed & the template meant thousands could be repaired more easily.— Rod ^talk 06:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We'd need to check, but the answer I got was that it was the use of "non-standard reference templates", presumably ones which obfuscate the standard ... url = | title = ... coding. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi guys I decided to chime in with some info. @Rodw: The reason the bot ignored your template is because it apparently is a non-standard citation template that auto generates the URL. So it can't know what URL is associated with it, and since it's non-standard it won't fidget with it to prevent possible breakage. I would also figure if you're using a template that auto-generates the URL, that in the event of a broken URL, the template itself can be updated to fix the problem instead of having to add archive URLs to it. @The Rambling Man: The bot takes slightly longer for a single page analysis than it does with a bot queue submission. However the bot queue submission tool does not come with the option to archive all non-dead references, and will use the bot's default setup for this wiki. This is for disruption prevention reasons. The tool is geared around ease of use, but also has anti-abuse and strong security measures in place. That one time you encountered the tool being disabled was because a security exploit was discovered. Fortunately it was only exploitable by old users predating 2006, but still serious. @Giants2008: The newest version of the bot has siginificant improvements to the date handling systems and the new version to be released soon, v1.3.2, addresses the excessive space issues with date formatting, as well as several other issues. Hope this helps clear some things up.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Maximum number of nominations

So right now the instructions state:

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

I can completely understand this when we had sixty or seventy promotions a month, or individuals would nominate five of the same kind of list at a time, but right now I don't really understand this restriction. I have around five FLCs which I'd like to list but right now that means it'll be about a year before the last one gets any traction. They aren't intrinsically related to one another (i.e. there's going to be limited commonality of problems) and I'm a committed editor who can cope with more than just one item on my watchlist. We are often compared (mostly negatively) to GAN, who have no such restriction on nominations. I would argue that, as a minimum, we reduce this from "should not" to "it is recommended that a second nomination is added..." and allow Giants2008 and his delegates (!) to decide whether or not the second and subsequent nominations should stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Delegates? Who are those guys? Yeah, I'm cool with relaxing this restriction- It's pretty clear to me that there's a dozen or so editors that have a queue of nominations where the limiting factor is that they can only really do one at a time. (Not me... I finally burned through my queue after 3 years running). How should we do it? Just the wording change you proposed (you can add a second and we'll cut it if you don't keep up), or explicitly allow as many as you want, or "Users may request on the talk page to add more than one nomination"? The wording you proposed would let you nominate 2 at a time, but not all 5; was that intentional? --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I wasn't dead set on any specific wording, just the principle of allowing multiple nominations at the discretion of the FLC brigade... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no real problems with a change, but don't want to see a situation where we have more noms than editors to review them. I'd be against allowing unlimited noms, as I wouldn't want to see FLC overwhelmed, but allowing two at once probably wouldn't do any harm. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess flooding is a fair point, but GAN manfully struggles through at a rate already not dissimilar to FLC, and they have no limit at all. If lists were of a similar nature, i.e. cookie-cutter lists which we used to see a lot of, then I would object to more than one at a time, but as long as they're different enough (per FLC dir/deleg) then I see no real harm. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Enix games

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Note that I nominated this list (obviously) and Giants has now supported, while TRM has done his usual cap-comments-but-don't-support thing (which I usually just interpret as a support anyways). That's... all 3 of us, so I'm not sure who's going to close this one. TRM, I guess? --PresN 16:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah if I don't outright support then it gives me more latitude to close such nominations, so I'm happy to oblige here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

TRM closing the nom at some point was what I assumed would happen when I decided to review the list. Looks like you're elected, TRM. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Question on MOS:PLOT and sourcing

Hi everyone. At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Quantico episodes/archive1, I asked a question after seeing that episode titles, directors, and writers were not covered by the given sources. The nominator replied that similar FLs also don't have inline cites for these items; I presume that the interpretation has been that these items are covered by the linked guidelines, which don't require references for plot details. What does the FLC community think? I could use some input as this FLC has attracted support and is in the range of promotion. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the information should be referenced. I saw the nominator used the example of the Game of Thrones episode list. Each entry in that list is blue-linked where the information can be referenced. In this case the blue-linked season articles don't have this information sourced for each episode. In any case each FL is taken by its own merits and FL quality expectations change with time. Cowlibob (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs citations. MOS:PLOT would cover actual plot summaries, but writer/director usually isn't covered by that, even if it's available in the show's credits. --PresN 11:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with PresN, that lazy referencing has slipped through in the past is no excuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob, Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man: I tried to cite the episodes but AlexTheWhovian reverted me. I don't have much to say.Krish | Talk 14:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think even at minimum just providing a cite template for the episode should be sufficient. Our episode lists tend to forget details that are required for WP:V, and while I agree that the primary source should be sufficient for cast and production credits, that should have a formal V-meeting citation, not just implicit. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm interested in your thoughts on why you reverted Krish's edit. Those of us who have commented here seem to believe that references of some kind (not just the existence of the episodes) are required for verifiability, and Krish is willing to add them, so what's the problem? Sure, other season articles may not have refs, but that doesn't mean they're doing the right thing. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No response to the last question, I see. It appears that another user has made an edit that introduced general references for the shows. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise, but I wanted to see if anyone else had any thoughts. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with that, personally. --PresN 01:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Toolbox problem

Are some of the tools down? I have tried on two different computers and citation bot and edit count work, but I get a 'Server not found' message on the other tools in the toolbox. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispenser's pages moved to a new address. That user put up a redirect to the link-checker tool on their talk page, in case that helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. Hopefully the rest of the tools will come back soon. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Red link

Why is the initiate nomination still red on Talk:List of songs recorded by Steps please?  — Calvin999 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: It's not for me; try the page or just clicking on the link. --PresN 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah it's not now. It was on two different computers this morning. Thanks.  — Calvin999 13:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mistake?

Does anyone know why List of awards and nominations received by Zara Larsson has the FL star on the article although it was never nominated for FL? It was just created today and was never nominated for FL. Is this a mistake and if so how can it be corrected? (I also posted this at the admin notice board so that that issue can be dealt with quicker) Jith12 (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The FL star was removed a few hours ago. Indeed, it's not a featured list by any means. Thanks for your note. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Increasing TFL to perhaps three per week?

Giants2008, PresN and others:

Should we look to increase the rate of TFLs to three per week? We have an astonishingly high backlog of FLs so there seems little reason why we shouldn't look to get a bit more main page exposure. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• By my count we would need something in the range of 13 to 15 promotions per month to realistically handle three TFLs a week over the long term. From the table at Wikipedia:Featured list statistics, we got a net gain of 13 or fewer FLs each month from December to May (with a low net gain of 7 in December), before things picked up in the past few months. Given that many of the lists passing FL are in the sports and media categories (my estimate is close to half in recent months), I'm up in the air about asking for more days due to concerns about diversity of subject matter. If we do go to 3 days, we will most likely have to schedule at least 3–4 sports and 3–4 media lists per month if we want to maintain quality; many of the lists in the backlog show signs of age and I'd prefer to avoid running them if possible. I have no problem with running that many if the community thinks it's okay, but I do fear that scheduling too many lists in the same couple of fields would wear out the community's welcome at some point. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus is missing its FL star

The List was promoted to FL status on March 9, 2014 but is missing the FL icon on the article page. Thought the FL folks would want to know and add the icon. Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Added. --PresN 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

FL count

Happy holidays, everyone. I learned from this talk page thread that the featured list count may be off at WP:FL. That user manually counted 3,230 FLs, but an external tool they were using came up with a count of 3,224. I attempted to look at the most recent changes to the FL list to see if one of us had forgotten to update the count, but it looks like we did make the proper changes. I found one duplicate and removed it from the FL list, and there could be more. Also, it is possible that lists were delisted but never removed from the page. If somebody has entirely too much time on their hands, would it be possible for someone to do some checks and see if we can make the counts consistent? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we need to do what GA do and subtotal each subsection? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll be bold and start going through and adding a note at the end of each FL section like this which can easily be updated afterwards by simply doing a "find" on the dot - the first entry doesn't have a dot but the last entry, the count, does, so after I've done the initial update, it's just a case of counting the dots for the subsection totals. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, between me and Harrias, we now have subtotals on every subsection. Just needs someone with one of those new-fangled Difference engines to "do the math" as our beloved American users would say. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I make it 3,255. Not sure if that really cleared anything up! Harrias ^talk 23:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, because Category:Featured lists say approximately 3,215! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I think someone needs to go through every FL listed at WP:FL and check it's an FL... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, 3,226; my count included the Contents list! That's closer, at least... Harrias ^talk 23:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, I've had a play with AWB. It reckons there are 3,227 articles in Category:Featured lists and exactly the same number on Wikipedia:Featured lists. Originally there were two that didn't match up; List of accolades received by Atonement (film) was on the page, but wasn't in the category, while List of awards and nominations received by The Strokes was in the category and had a star, despite being demoted some years ago. I tidied those two up now, and I reckon it all matches up on 3,227. Maybe. Harrias ^talk 00:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

3,227, ironically, being the same count we had before all of this. :) --PresN 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Great job on clearing this up guys. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Advertisement of my FLC

@WP:FLC director and delegates: -Will it be okay if I place a neutrally worded notification on the noticeboards of WP:India and WP:Politics to inform more people about the List of Presidents of India FLC (since I am new )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Asking neutrally for a review anywhere seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --PresN 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as the wording is neutral, I have no issue with it either. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything else which can be done to somehow get people to review the nominations, or is such a stagnation usual for a FLC, I had anticipated a lot more of involvement since this such a important topic — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your FLC has garnered a few supports, which means it's in better shape than many other FLCs after a month. Sadly, we only have so many reviewers to go around, and it's not uncommon for FLCs to last a couple of months. If you want to do a couple of reviews yourself, that would be the best thing you could do to help move things along. Fewer active FLCs means a greater chance that a reviewer will choose to look at your list. Also, editors will sometimes review articles from those who have given them reviews elsewhere, which is an added benefit. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

James Bond films

Hi everyone! It's been a long time since I've been around these parts and I didn't want to rock the boat by making a misplaced nomination.

List of James Bond films was originally promoted in 2011, and nominated for FLR review at the beginning of this year. This was the revision at the time it passed.

It has now undergone another series of edits that has changed the format of the page again. I don't edit Wikipedia much any more, and I certainly am not here at FLC enough (although I do lurk occasionally) to know whether it is still up to scratch with the criteria. I don't even know if the criteria has changed since my time. Perhaps someone more active could take a look and decide if it needs another review?

Keep up the good work! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Great to see you Matthew! This list looks to have had plot summaries added since the FLRC, among other changes. The primary contributor is still active and contributing to the list. @SchroCat: are you satisfied with the state of the list? If so, that would be good enough for me to say that it still merits the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who did some of the reworking since January as it was in a rather poor state. The split by decades, for example, was not great and was raised on the talk page as being a problem. Pages are dynamic and are always open to change, and this, as it stands, would probably pass an FLC as it stands (give or take a copyright edit or two). Regards and happy new year to you both. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's that time again...

Everyone, please be aware that my busy season in real life is just about here, meaning that I won't have time to do much of anything FLC-related over the next few months, other than pick TFLs (which I promise will be done as usual). Given that we had our most December promotions in seven years, and are on pace for a similar result this month, there's more than enough editing talent in this process to keep things running smoothly for a while. Nominations and reviewers alike, keep up the great work and I'll be back full-time in the spring, although I hope to sneak in a closure or two here and there. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We'll keep the lights on around here, and hopefully TRM and I can keep the promotions pipeline running as smoothly as it's been the last couple of months. Best of luck! --PresN 04:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, should be no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Airline destination lists

Per this, we lost two FLs today, and a clearly strong direction on any future aircraft destination lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For further discussion and interesting discourse, please contact Beeblebrox. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ANI, they have recieved a stay of execution: the discussion may have agreed that all such lists must go, but the axe got stopped halfway through the category because objections were raised that they should release their mortal coil through AfD, not summary execution. So, for now they're still on the FL list, until the bueracracy is untangled. Speaking for myself, I find the whole back and forth a bit odd- I don't think Beeblebrox should have started deleting articles, but it's not because I think AfD is the holy arbiter of deletion discussion vs. anywhere else, but because if you're going to go deleting 400+ articles, it needs at least an RfC notification, not just a village pump discussion among those who happen to pay attention to that page. I have no strong opinions other than that. --PresN 04:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

I happened to notice this village pump thread of interest to FLC. Apparently, an FL has been split into two separate lists, both of which currently have the FL star, and the list linked to on the main FL page is now a disambiguation link. @AlexTheWhovian: you asked for a greater audience than WT:FL would have. I think this page would fit the bill, and we'll need to figure out how to handle this in any case. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; this talk page does appear to be more active. I would be interested in hearing from the wider community on their opinion on this. -- Alex^TW 04:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Agh, as always, we can never come up with a guidline for these types of splits because each one is so different. Especially when, like this case, the original FLC was so long ago. It was promoted in December 2007, and looked like this. Besides the fact that it was not, uh, great, and the fact that the style is pretty different from List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), note that it, obviously, covered only 3 seasons of New Who (2005-07), and 26 seasons + a movie of Who Classic. I feel that this split was different than the Simpsons split that recently came up- that one, at its core, was just the list getting longer every year until it had to get chopped into two pages for size reasons, with a 20 year cutoff because round numbers are fun. This was a split seemingly made mostly because of the obvious gap and change between the two Who versions, with size as a secondary concern. When you combine that with how almost all of the 2005+ list has never been reviewed, in form or content, I'm inclined to give the 1963-89 list the star only. I would also strongly recommend a review of the 1963-89 list as well (informally or formally), due to the large changes in the decade since it was promoted; this is a little unfair, as pretty much every 2007 FL should get that scrutiny, but it doesn't have to be an FLRC. --PresN 05:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Pres N, some form of review for the Classic Who list, and a new FLC needed for the New Who one. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a sensible proposal. To the wider point I agree that many of the lists promoted a decade ago, that have seen very little activity since, don't stack up against the current FLC standards. A review of all of these lists is required. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That strikes me as the correct outcome too. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Do you have an opinion one way or another? Unless you're opposed I'll sort these two lists out tomorrow, and I plan to get working on a list of what 2007 or earlier FLs are still extant without a review. We only had 517 FLs as of the end of 2007 (May 2005-Dec 2007), and a quick scan with my link highlighting script shows what looks like ~350 lists are still Featured from that (though over half have been renamed, since). --PresN 04:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Uncle Tupelo discography

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.

---

Dear FL directors, there is a FL nomination that was promoted 11 years ago - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Uncle Tupelo discography. The issue right now is that this page doesn't exist anymore, it was merged with the main page. Someone removed that page from WP:FL without demoting it first, also this page doesn't appear at WP:FFL either. What procedural steps have to be done to resolve this issue? Just put it at WP:FFL?--Cheetah (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Can someone offer an idea what to do here?--Cheetah (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I vote for making an FLRC with the aim of speedily delisting the page, just for the sake of bookkeeping. When I go through FLC tomorrow, I can close the FLRC and add the list to FFL if one is made. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm less interested in the bookkeeping, myself; I treat merges like that as a de facto delisting and would just add it to FFL directly- technically "removing the link from WP:FL" is that actual delisting, and both adding a link to FFL and having an FLRC is just record keeping without any weight beyond it, so I don't see the point. If Giants wants an FLRC page to link, though, that's also fine, it doesn't hurt anything. --PresN 01:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

PresN, basically, you're not following the proper procedure of demoting a featured list. It's very strange and disappointing to hear from a FL director delegate. Today after reading your comment, I went over many FLs and noticed two lists that were demoted via FLRC nomination by you, but never added to the WP:FFL; also, there are three FLs that you added to the WP:FFL without nominating them in the removal process. User:Giants2008 and User:The Rambling Man, do you guys approve PresN's actions? Just curious...--Cheetah (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

From experience, it's easy to forget to update FFL if it's not on one's mind, since that page isn't often used and our biggest concern is keeping the FL count up to date. These certainly aren't issues that I'd want delegate status removed over, if that's what you were thinking. Better to just add the missing lists to FFL and improve our procedures going forward. Anyway, I'm off to review FLC now and will close the Tupelo FLRC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not what I was thinking. I just don't want all three of you guys to ignore basic procedures. More concerning to me was to see those 3 lists added to the FFL (here) without community consensus.--Cheetah (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you and I have a fundamental disconnect between what we think the purpose of the FL and FFL list pages is. I see them as describing reality, not prescribing reality. If a list is merged into a parent article through whatever legitimate process it happens, then in my mind it has ceased to be a featured list just as it has ceased to be a list at all. As such, it should be removed from the FL page and added to the FFL page. That is to say, to me the Featured List process is one of reviewing and starring great lists, and it does not confer upon those lists any additional weight (e.g. featured lists should not be considered any more difficult to merge than a well-written non-featured list- the star is a marker of quality, not a sign that all merge discussions must be overseen by FLRC).

I see the papertrail benefit of making an FLRC for such an ex-list anyway, but to me that's a small benefit that is outweighed by the bureaucratic effort it adds- namely that I don't want reviewers at FLC spending any time that they would have spent reviewing an FLC instead 2nd-reviewing a completed merge. FLC reviewers are spread thin as it is; they can't also be the content guardians for 3000+ lists just in the off case we want to overrule local consensus. And if FLRCs are going to be opened by you and then immediately closed by Giants just so there is an easy page to point to for why a specific list got demoted after it stopped existing... well, if that's what y'all want to do then I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I personally don't see much benefit, as I wouldn't think people would expect a merged list to stay listed to FL.

All that aside, if I demoted lists at FLRC and forgot to add them to FFL, that was a clear error on my part and I'll fix that if you let me know which ones. --PresN 01:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a cycle: a list gets nominated for a promotion, then promoted, then nominated for a demotion, then demoted. If we start removing lists from FL without a nomination of demoting, what keeps us from just adding lists we like to FL without nominating? Bureaucracy is needed to keep this cycle flowing. We vote for directors/delegates who execute this bureaucracy. As for the lists that you forgot to add, don't worry, it's easier for me to add than to let you know.--Cheetah (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure you felt that rudeness was deserved for some reason. You said something I found interesting, though- you seem to see FL as a bureaucracy, with the director/delegates elected by editors to just keep the wheels turning. My understanding, however, was that no one elected Giants, but that they were appointed by the other organizers in 2009. Elections weren't a thing after that until Giants decided to set one up in 2013, which got us SchroCat and Crisco 1942; I actually ran in that election and lost. Then I got picked (by Schro/Giants/Crisco) in 2014 to be a delegate, and approved via RfC. We've had a couple elections since then; I was the one who set up both of them in the hopes of getting people to self-nominate moreso than to get people to vote, which means of the 3 of us only TRM has actually been voted in. Additionally, the FL instructions in whatever form they took have always stated words to the following: "These steps are not, strictly, required: the only thing that determines whether a list is an FL is whether it was added to or removed from WP:FL by the Featured list directors or their delegates. The instructions on this page are for the convenience of other editors, by creating a stable and transparent process." You'll note that this line actually answers your question of "what keeps us from just adding lists we like to FL without nominating?".

All that history aside, the FL system, like so much of wikipedia, is something that runs on inertia and volunteerism moreso than written rules; that the director/delegates were officially the sole decisionmakers in 2009 doesn't mean that that's how it's seen today. So I'm curious as to Giants2008's opinion, if they have one. --PresN 04:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Giants had 8 support votes in 2009, that's how he became a FLRC delegate. Per that RfC you mentioned, you were voted in, as well, so all three of you were voted in. As for the instructions, good thing Wkipedia keeps page history, and I am not surprised now to see that you were the one who added that bit to the instructions page here in December 2015, my guess is you didn't ask community. It wasn't always there, it's just been there for less than three years.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

...that's a rewording of a sentence being moved from line 150 in that edit. A sentence that was present in every revision going back to the prior instructions when they were first written in 2008.

You know what? I think I'm done with this discussion. I agree with TRM below, I'm not sure what this is trying to prove- I guess you think I'm a rogue or bad delegate because I removed merged lists from FL without an FLRC? All I can tell is that every time I say an opinion you disagree with you get ruder, so I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. --PresN 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this thread is trying to prove or provide, if anything. My TL;dr summary is "some lists didn't quite get shuffled into the right pages quite correctly". I'm not sure any of the three of us have "ignored basic procedure" unless it was just a better way of doing something. This appears to be a storm in a teacup and I suggest we all move on and do something to benefit Wikipedia, e.g. write a decent list! I am!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2018 (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.

Source review question

I'm about to start drafting an RfC for a featured quality source review process that would be a prerequisite for a FAC nomination. (See WT:FAC for the background and some discussion of the just-completed workshop.) It's obviously of interest to FAC, but it may interest FLC regulars too, since FLC could also choose to require a source review prior to a nomination being permitted at FLC. I'd like to understand what the current source review policy is here, so I can state it correctly in the RfC. FAC requires every successful nomination to have an explicit source review. Is there something similar here at FLC? That is, is it possible for a nomination to pass with no reviewers commenting on sources, or would the coordinators insist on such a review before promoting? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: FLC, since January 2016, has required every nomination to receive a source review prior to being promoted. We haven't been explicit about what a source review must entail, but practically it must: include spot checks for if the sources cover what they claim to (and plagiarism, though that's nowhere near the concern here it is at FAC), and include a scan of clear and consistent citation formatting. FLCs that are in need of a source review are listed in the box at the top of WP:FLC; that said, I'd say the majority of nominations get their source review from the closing delegate rather than from another reviewer. Unlike FAC, we don't hold off on closing a nomination for lack of a source review, we just do it ourselves (as most citations are for clear facts in tables here, it's a much faster process than at FAC). --PresN 03:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I'll link to this conversation from the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The draft RfC is here, and some discussion is here; I don't know if FLC regulars will be interested in adopting FSR as a prerequisite, as the RfC proposes for FAC, but I wanted to make sure FLC editors are aware of the RfC. Please comment there or here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note to any FAC wanderers: after reading the RfC, I wanted to add that the FLC source reviews typically don't include the FAC concern of using "high quality" sources, beyond that they are RSs; instead, whether a list is based on the "right" sources and does not exclude required sources is generally part of the standard reviews instead. --PresN 14:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see how this works at FAC before supporting the implementation of a similar process here, and have some thoughts on the practicality of it for FAC that I'll give at the RFC when I have a chance. However, while this is here, I'd like to suggest that any watchers of this page who want to help out FLC do a source review or two in their spare time. It's not healthy for the FL process when two of us are doing the vast majority of the source reviewing. If something ever happened to myself or Pres, I don't know how the source reviewing would get done. Please, offer us some help if you can. Even if you can't check everything, a review of the reliability or formatting of the sources would be very helpful for us. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Instructions/reality mismatch at FLRC

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Hey other coordinators and FLC regulars, an editor recently brought to my attention on my talk page a mismatch between the FLRC instructions and the way I've understood to be the consensus way to close FLRCs, and I think that either the instructions or me/us is wrong. I closed List of cities in Israel as Keep the other day- although a couple editors said delist, a couple more said keep, and I also would have voted keep if I wasn't the closer as I felt the only reason given for delisting was not a valid one as presented and no other reasons were given. Specifically, however, I said "At this point, it appears unlikely that a sudden consensus to delist is going to appear, so I'm going to go ahead and close this nomination", which is in keeping with the way I've understood FLRC to work- you need consensus to delist, and non consensus means keep. But that's not actually what the instructions say: WP:FLRC says "For a nomination to be kept, consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria", e.g. that no consensus means delist. So, while I stand by my close, IAR and all that, I'm seeking clarification: am I wrong about FLRC, or are the instructions no longer matching how we handle FLRC? --PresN 03:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've always treated no consensus closes as keeps as well, and am very surprised to see that the instructions don't match the standard that is used throughout most of Wikipedia. The wording at WP:FAR indicates that consensus is necessary for an article's status to change, and I strongly suggest that we change the instructions to resemble what exists there, as that matches the precedent we have established here. As for the close, I fully back your decision and the rationale behind it. The FLC process (including FLRC) can be a powerful tool in helping to improve the standards of Wikipedia lists, but one thing we cannot do is use the process to overrule a consensus that has formed elsewhere, because consensus is at the very heart of editing, especially in contentious fields like the one in question. Before the FLRC, there was a requested move that failed to achieve a consensus to move the article's title. If we were to then delist the article due to the concerns raised, we would be saying the page couldn't be featured until the title was changed, which goes against the lack of consensus for changing it at the previous discussion. In short, this is an issue that should be worked out on the talk page of the article in question, not in an FLRC. The only !vote from an editor who I'd consider truly uninvolved at the time was TRM, who supported keeping FL status; the rest were from involved editors. Given those circumstances, a no consensus keep was the logical decision. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Hey there FLC delegates I have a question for you. As I understand that for the artist/actor/musician awards list we are prescribing for the compact layout as recently aligned in List of awards and nominations received by Meghan Trainor. Seeing this I want to update the above Lady Gaga awards list. My question is would I need to have a FLReview for this since it will be significantly changed? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: It's the same information, just combined into a single table, right? I don't think you need a formal review, just make sure that the sorting functionality works correctly. You can ask here for an informal review once you're done if you want. --PresN 15:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes PresN, just consolidating all the content into one table. I personally don't think a formal review is needed either. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree, updating it is a fine idea and in my opinion will not detract in any sense from its featured status. No need for re-review, although I'm happy to give it a once-over if that would make things more "formal". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think an FLRC is needed either. Be bold and make the changes, and if there are any issues they can be addressed in the normal editing process. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Second nom

Header in FLC page says Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. My current nomination is List of Indian Nobel laureates and its been in the queue for almost two months and gained three supports. So is it possible for me to nominate another FLC now? Thanks in advance. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I say go ahead with the second nomination as long as it's not another "List of XXXX nation's Nobel laureates" page, because at least one editor has questioned that list's stand-alone status and it would be best to have that concern resolved before nominating another similar list at FLC. Otherwise, you have my blessing, for what it's worth. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It's actually a different one. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My annual notice

Hello everyone. As is usual for me this time of year, my busy season in real life is coming up and I won't be doing as many closures for the next few months. The delegates, and the rest of the FLC community, have done a fine job picking up the slack the last few years in similar circumstances, and I have full confidence that you will all do just as well this year. I'll still be around to keep TFL populated and will try to sneak in a closure every once in a while, if time permits. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Awards notability

Hi @WP:FLC director and delegates: correct me if I am wrong, but we generally do not add awards to lists which do not have article in Wikipedia and hence are deemed non-notable. I'm asking because an IP user is adding continuously something called the Gaygalan awards in the Lady Gaga awards featured list, although the award does not seem to have any article in Wikipedia. The award is given by some Swedish magazine called QX and does not even seem to note the award. Both WP:GNG and WP:N applies here I feel and have removed the award but the IP insists its notable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well generally it's fair to say that I will always oppose award lists that contain awards which aren't considered notable by virtue of not having a Wikipedia article. But unfortunately, what happens to lists post-promotion is really outside of the bailiwick of the FLC director and delegates. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree, and that's what I have been trying to maintain here. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

New nomination?

I have List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk with 4 supports and List of Local Nature Reserves in Surrey with 3 supports. Would it be OK for me to nominate a new list? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And at some point I'll try to get a round of closures in. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Armorial of the United States

At one point this was a featured list. It certainly isn't anymore. I've been inactive for a while but would like to take the last version of the FL that I took through the FLC process and restore it, if that is allowed, under it's original name Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876. Happy to leave what has been renamed alone, but it's not even close to the FL on Louis Prang's engraving that it used to be.--Godot13 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Godot13: FLC does not mediate content disputes on featured lists. If you're upset with the large-scale (and still ongoing, there's like 100 edits in the last 2 days) changes to that list, made in the last few months (including it's merger with others into the larger Armorial list, which has mangled the article history (last real revision here)) and want to re-create the old list at a new (old) title, that's up to you. I'm not comfortable with your proposed fork being automatically an FL, though, just because something at that title with that content was a few weeks ago- both because of the precedent and because if the Armorial list is so radically different then it probably needs a new review anyways. If you make a new list and it sticks, I'd instead ask that you open up an FLRC discussion to remove the star from Armorial and give it to your new (old) list. I'd also ask that you wait until Armorial settles a bit, since it's under such heavy editing, but that's up to you. --PresN 12:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for your response. I was able to get the editor responsible for the changes to revert them.--Godot13 (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms (2000–present)

What's the story with this one? The Bot is complaining that the article doesn't exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The nominator/sole editor decided to instead have a single "List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms" list, and deleted the article rather than redirect it. I'll restore and mark the nomination as archived. --PresN 19:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about nomination

Hi there! Just have a question about my nomination, List of awards and nominations received by Exo. It has recently been moved into the "Source Review Needed" section; however, 2 of the 4 supports it currently has both include extremely detailed source reviews. Am I missing something or is this an error? The Nom currently has 4 supports and no outstanding comments or opposes. NicklausAU 12:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

While it looks like the list has been promoted since this comment, I just want to clarify that we need reviewers to say that they've reviewed the reliability and formatting of references under the heading Source review or similar, so that us closers don't miss the reviews in the middle of capped commentary. Spot-checks of cited material to the sources are greatly appreciated as well, and checks that the links are working also help us. Basically, anything reviewers can do to help in the category of source reviewing would go a long way toward making the FLC process faster and better. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I was one of the persons who reviewed every single reference myself (for formatting/reliability/dead links etc.) and made sure everything was uniform and in working order and that all links were live or archived if dead. My review was pretty detailed as regards sources. Do I need to edit my final comment (where I gave my support) and say it there or highlight the parts of my review that did so to make things easier for someone looking at it? Point me in the right direction and I'll clarify if that's what you need. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

For the previous FLC, you don't need to do anything as that has now been closed and PresN also reviewed the sources. In the future, if you do a source review and find no issues with reliability or formatting, say so in your review and try separating it from your other comments so the closers can more easily see that a source review was done. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination question

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Japan/archive1 currently has 3 supports, I'd like to put another list up for review if possible (I don't know if FLC operates the same way as FAC, but the Japan list is a co-nomination and the one I'd want to run is a solo nomination, so that may be enough on its own). Can one of the delegates let me know? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: Yep, that's fine. --PresN 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Next Nine

I know we went through this with the Mercury Seven, which was rejected for FLC, but I would like an opinion on whether the Next Nine would be acceptable? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so; like with M7, it's structured like an article that happens to have a 9-item table in the middle, not like a list that has some framing paragraphs. --PresN 21:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's very disappointing, but not unexpected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Outdated FL accolades pages

Hi all. After nominating List of awards and nominations received by Radiohead for FLRC (since it uses the outdated mini-table format on top of barely any references), User:DanielleTH brought up a good point here – that many accolade lists by musical groups/artists that are FLs still use the outdated mini-table format. I decided to do a deep dive into this issue and present a list of accolade lists that all use this outdated format as well as my opinion on whether each list still looks like a proper FL (mainly based solely on references):

• List of awards and nominations received by Adele

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Aerosmith

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Arcade Fire

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Arctic Monkeys

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Beck

• Still FL quality? – No (there's actually a few tags on this one)

• List of awards and nominations received by Björk

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by David Bowie

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Chris Brown

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Casting Crowns

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Ciara

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Sheryl Crow

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Crowded House

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Dave Matthews Band

• Still FL quality? – Yes, but it's less than 9k bytes so there's honestly no reason for it to not be merged with Dave Matthews Band

• List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Jorge Drexler

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Feist

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and honors received by Judy Garland

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Gorillaz

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Guns N' Roses

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Inna

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Norah Jones

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Paul Kelly

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by the Killers

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Alison Krauss

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by John Legend

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Lorde

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Ludacris

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Madonna

• Still FL quality? – No

• List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth

• Still FL quality? – No (literally been a citation tag on this one since May 2017)

• List of awards and nominations received by Metallica

• Still FL quality? – No, barely sourced and some refs are bare urls

• List of awards and nominations received by George Michael

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Alanis Morissette

• Still FL quality? – No, only has 9 refs total, honestly have no idea how this was promoted

• List of awards and nominations received by Muse

• Still FL quality? – Weak no

• List of awards and nominations received by Nickelback

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Pearl Jam

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Powderfinger

• Still FL quality? – Yes, although it starts with "this is a list..."

• List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Selena

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes

• List of awards and nominations received by S.H.E

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Silverchair

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes, although it starts with "this is a list..."

• List of awards and nominations received by Slipknot

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Billy Talent

• Still FL quality? – Weak yes, although it's less than 11k bytes, so possible merge?

• List of awards and nominations received by Timbaland

• Still FL quality? – No, multiple tags since January 2016 and the star doesn't even appear at the top of the page (?)

• List of awards and nominations received by Regine Velasquez

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Kanye West

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by the White Stripes

• Still FL quality? – Yes

• List of awards and nominations received by Amy Winehouse

• Still FL quality? – Yes

There's quite a few FL accolade lists that have the updated one table format but every one of these (a vast majority) is still the old outdated format. I'm really not sure how we should go about this, I just thought I should bring it to everyone's attention since we've been having quite a few accolade lists pop up at FLC that still have the outdated format as of recently. – zmbro _(talk) 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• If there are pages that you feel no longer meet the FL criteria for this reason, you or other interested users can work on the tables to bring the formatting in line with what is expected in 2020. If you don't want to do that, then you are free to continue nominating them at FLRC. In case there are music editors who want to work on the tables, I'd suggest limiting yourself to one or two at a time to avoid overwhelming them with work. If lists with the old table formatting are nominated at FLC, you can oppose the nominations on the basis of the outdated table formatting. In either case, it would be helpful to point to a list with the proper formatting, to guide editors in the right direction if they want to bring the formatting to modern standards (as was done in the Camila Cabello FLC that is linked in the Radiohead FLRC). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester

Hi Giants, PresN and TRM, I was doing some clean up on the featured lists when I discovered the following. List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester was promoted to FL status back in February 2008. The list contained buildings only within the metropolitan borough of Manchester. In 2017, there was discussion on the talk page that the scope of the list should be expanded to include all buildings within the Greater Manchester area. Delusion23 had the sensible idea for merging both List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester and List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford (also a featured list promoted in May 2008 and reviewed in December 2012) into a combined Greater Manchester list. However, List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester was created but the articles were not merged. Since then the Manchester list has been redirected to Greater Manchester list and the Salford lists stands alone. Both lists have been substantially rewritten and updated by ChrisClarke88.

So the question is what to do with the FL status of the redirected article. At the moment the Greater Manchester list is listed at Wikipedia:Featured lists but the list is not currently displaying the star. There are some issues with the Greater Manchester list including having only one ref in the lead and all the refs are bare urls. So we either assume that Greater Manchester list has inherited the star and place the list up for review at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates or we just simply remove the Greater Manchester list from WP:FL.

Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

My thought is (and apologies for my reasonably long-term absence around these parts) that we move the FL star to List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester but immediately go to FLRC as clearly the scope (and undoubtedly quality) of the list has changed since it was last adequately reviewed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree; especially with both "parts" having been promoted almost 12 years ago and the resulting merge mess, a more formal referendum on the status is warranted- as well as whether it makes sense to have both "Greater Manchester" and "Salford" lists (at least in terms of FL criteria). --PresN 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with my colleagues. Give the Greater Manchester list the star, but nominate it at FLRC due to its obvious deficiencies. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ianblair23 if you're okay with that, let me know, I'll try to do the paperwork. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, looks like we are in agreement. Good to see you back around here TRM. Take it away. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we're good - I've nominated the list at FLRC. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Annual notification

Hi everyone. As usual, this is the time of year when my busy season in real life kicks in, which means that my editing activity will decline during the next few months. While I'll continue stocking TFL with lists as I normally do, I won't have time for as many FLC reviews or closures as I otherwise would. The community has done a fine job dealing with my relative downtime in the past, and I have full confidence it will do so again. Plus, I'm sure I can sneak in some occasional work here and there to help the process along. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Peer review request

Hi everyone. I've been working with another editor on a peer review for List of coal fired power stations in Turkey lately and would like to request some more input from other FLC reviewers before they nominate it here. I'm doing this because I personally believe it's still not up to FL standards yet but I feel I've done all that I know. So ChrisTheDude Aoba47 Cowlibob Giants2008 or any more who see this, if one of you could please check it out and give some comments I'd greatly appreciate it. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

can this one item list be FL?

List of chief ministers of Telangana just has one item, since it's a pretty new state. But I think it satisfies the criteria for a standalone list since it's one in a series of lists of chief ministers of Indian states, and in a decade or two it'll have more items, even sooner if the political climate becomes unstable. So, is it eligible to be a featured list or is too short? TryKid (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point I think it might be better served under the title of Chief Minister of Telangana and being assessed through the prose channels (GA/FA) for now—as time goes by and the office is filled successively it will eventually reach an adequate length to be spun out under criterion 3c, but I'm not seeing its function as a list for now. GRAPPLE ^X 21:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The current title is the standard format, all of the other 30 lists have titles in this format. Chief Minister of Telangana redirects to this title, like it should. I don't think it would be appropriate to this to be a prose article. TryKid (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How many items does the next-smallest list contain? This just feels like it's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole solely because all the other pegs have been round; at the end of the day I don't feel like a single item is a "list", so the article by default will be more about the office than any list of its holders for now. GRAPPLE ^X 23:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh I'm slightly inclined to support it since there's no clear merge target and it does fit with the set of related lists but it really should have multiple items. There are five other chief minister FLs including TryKid's List of chief ministers of Chhattisgarh from last year with three items. But unless you have a particular reason to do this one I would encourage you to work on others first and save this for when you get toward a WP:FT or something. I don't know Indian politics, would it make sense to merge List of deputy chief ministers of Telangana into it? Only a handful of states have lists for that and several aren't in great condition. Reywas92^Talk 05:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't support a one-item list being promoted to FL, since it's not really a list, as Grapple says. The good news is that, if you want to go for a featured topic and the article can't pass FLC, you can put the page through an "approved quality audit" (peer review) and the featured topic criteria will consider that good enough until the list has more entries and can become an FL. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a chance I'm afraid. It's material that should be merged into a parent article for the next 20 or so years. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Dank/Tables

I just completed a review of List of local nature reserves in Berkshire. At User:Dank/Tables, I've reproduced the first three rows of that table, in the original format and three two different formats. (I'm never going to ask people to change their table format when I'm reviewing at FLC ... this is just information for whoever is interested ... in this case, Dudley was open to the idea.) If you read Wikipedia without any zoom (i.e. magnification), my formats might seem like a pointless exercise. But on my 12-inch-wide 14-inch laptop screen at a zoom of 133% (try Ctrl-+ to zoom on a laptop), about 90% of the table text in the original table is crowded into the rightmost 1.3 inches of my screen. A lot of people use a zoom of 133%, especially older people (like me) and people with vision problems other than straightforward near- or farsightedness (I've got some astigmatism.) The first alternative table combines 3 columns with sparse information, and uses shorter words in one column label. The second creates a double row for each entry, which allows larger images if you want them and provides lots of room for running text. (It's still completely sortable ... try it and see.) at the cost of a total loss of sortability. The third fixes the sortability problem ... try it and see ... but I believe the cost you have to pay to make it work is that the second row of each entry has to extend all the way across the table. I could see myself using any of the three approaches on my own tables, it would just depend on whether I need sortability and how much I'm trying to cram into the table ... provided they meet current FLC requirements. That's my question: do they? The most recent discussions I can find concerning the required "rowspan" and "colspan" parameters are at WP:Featured list candidates/Michael W. Smith discography/archive1 and WT:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Archive_14#Rowspan. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I also have a smaller screen, as do mobile users. Combining at least the map and details links makes sense – I like the first alternative best since double rows are less attractive and sortability is good, but I'm not sure the Other designations should be combined with them too. This is also why I generally recommend against a column just for references (and here the footnote just unnecessarily duplicates the Details link anyway). Reywas92^Talk 07:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Sorry, I've corrected my screen size to "14-inch", since screens are usually measured on the diagonal. 2. I'm only talking about tables where the last column has a lot of prose text that gets scrunched up ... otherwise I'm good. 3. Sure, I'm open to any guidelines reviewers want to set about which kinds of columns you can combine (for the minority of tables and minority of interested editors we're talking about.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

According to RexxS at User talk:Reywas92#WT:FLC#User:Dank/Tables, the first and third options are good but the second option is never going to sort. He's an authority on this stuff, so I'm going to strike my question and the discussion of the second option above, and delete the second option from my Tables page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot report

@WP:FLC director and delegates: The FLC delegates have started using "delisted" instead of "removed" for FLR candidates. The Bot has been updated to allow this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that issue, Hawkeye. We've had problems with FLRCs not closing properly in the past, and I'm thinking that may have had something to do with it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a very popular script, too. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, about 82 people have it installed as of writing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Moving candidacy page

@WP:FLC director and delegates: I moved the candidacy page of the list I nominated so that it reads "/archive2", because this is the second time this list has been nominated for FL (but first time under this particular article title). Should I move it back? My apologies for going ahead before asking – I hope this does not cause any problems and/or confusion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bloom6132,  Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 20:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Requirement for an Image review?

Can somebody remind me whether an Image review is a requirement for FLC? I don't think I'm seeing it in the criteria? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no specific requirement for a specific image review, like at FAC, but 5b) of the criteria deals with images, so it should still be looked at during a review. Harrias ^talk 07:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC that will effect us

WP:ACCESS might be expanded Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#RfC on table captions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: and @ anyone else who participates at FLC: The RfC has been closed in favor of making captions a requirement for tables in the MOS to meet ACCESS requirements. Since FLC mandates that nominations follow ACCESS, this means that they'll need to start having captions. In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "|+ Example table caption". --PresN 03:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's one of the less onerous aspects of MOS so shouldn't be a major issue. It's a shame it didn't go further and implement things like "Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table" etc, but it's a start I guess. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero, PresN, and The Rambling Man: would one of you please point Mattximus and I to a diff showing the proper implementation of this so that we can promptly and proactively address in our tenth Canadian municipality list co-nomination? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Try something like List of winners of the Boston Marathon, a current nomination, which implements captions correctly as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, are you referring to the usage of ! scope="col" and ! scope="row"? If so, I think we are okay. I believe we learned of this in one of our first co-nominations. Hwy43 (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No, those are scopes, what I'm referring to is the caption which is coded in that example just below the definition of the wikitable class, it looks like this: |+ Winners: Men's open division. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it - thanks! Hwy43 (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this, but in light of this RFC - are captions necessary for the individuals' photos in List of cyclists with a cycling-related death? It seems redundant to me since each photo in the Table is clearly identified as the person but of course I'll caption all the Table images if necessary. I captioned a few and will continue to work on it today...figuring out the spacing will be interesting. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there's a difference between image captions and table captions, this is the latter. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OH. Duh on me, I saw captions and mentally skipped over the part about table captions. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Help! I messed up some page move stuff for a WP:FLC

See my contributions.

The main problem is that I created Wikipedia:Featured list candidates:List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/archive 2 instead of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates:List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/Archive 2. So I was trying to fix it but now there's a big SPEEDY DELETE in the middle of the main FLC page instead of the FLC for List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death... Am frantic, if it's not fixed by the time whoever you are reads this could you please look in on the situation and fix it please. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Neither was right. Now at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/archive2, which is where the template on the article talk page is pointing; updated the FLC list to use the new list title. --PresN 05:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)