Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Making something clear

I think we need to make it clear in the header on WP:FLC that lists should not be renominated right after a fail. Even if objections have been fixed after the fail, I think we should have a mandatory time limit between noms for the sake of the community so it doesnt have to keep on reviewing the same list. Maybe a week or something like that. And I also think we should make it clear that noms can be speedy closed if there has not been significant changes from the last failed nomination. Im kind of getting tired of this. Any thoughts?
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends... if an editor has made some major chnages in ashort space of time following a rejection, then I see no reason why alist couldn't be re-nomianted in short space of time. I think imposing a formal time limit would act as hinderance. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If someone does immediately renominate a page without working on it, then we can speedy close it anyway. -- Scorpion0422 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the 4-support req?

Can we change so that FLCs could get closed without four supports after ten days yet with clear consensus? That might need appointer an FLC director like at FAC and Raul654... just throwing this idea out. I personally dislike the 4-support rule. Maxim(talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree there. If we don't have a minimum of support, we could end up with stuff like I've seen happen recently in GAs and FAs where they are passing with only one or two support yet the article very obviously does not meet the criteria. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a firm supporter of the four support rule. It ensures that an FLC is there long enough so that enough people see it. Around here, if an candidate has more than 2 votes after 10 days then it is lucky. -- Scorpion0422 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that we should get rid of the 4 support rule. At least 3 users have to review one list before it gets closed, ideally one of them should be an expert in the field, another familiar with all of the Wikipedia rules, and the other just an outsider(a non-expert in the field).--Crzycheetah 09:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with the proposal, agree with the comments made so far. It would be nice to be able to speed things up here at FLC, but I'd say four-supports is a good amount. Besides, it's really only 3, since the nomination itself counts as one. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Drewcifer (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, keep the four supports. As scorpion says, it is a lucky FLC that has 2 comments after 10 days (unless it has project backing). I think 4 is a good threshold to make sure that it gets adequately reviewed. Woody (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the 4-support rule for reasons stated by others. It ensures that an list gets a de minimis level of review, sooner or later, before being promoted. --Orlady (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the 4-support rule should be kept, not least because it helps ensure enough people look at it. I can recall very few occasions were a list failed due to lack of comments. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning User:Maxim just passed his own nomination by disregarding the 4-support rule.--Crzycheetah 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Good catch. That's completely uncalled for, Maxim. --Golbez (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a major conflict of interest. People shouldn't be able to pass their own nominations, not even admins. For those wondering, the FL in question is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lester Patrick Trophy, and the promotion attempt has been reverted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have closed my own nominations in the past (back in the day when I was the only one actively closing them), however I never closed them if they had opposition. -- Scorpion0422 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was only following Scorpion's example. And there's no difference if I'm an admin or not. ;-) Maxim(talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
All good but as a rule of thumb, never close your own noms. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think there's anything too controversial about closing your nom provided it's unanimous, like in that case. It was done before at FLC and it wasn't a big deal, but if most prefer that not happen, so be it. Maxim(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I just think that not closing your own noms avoids the inevitable (perceived) conflict of interest. I don't see the rush in these things. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as one who has promoted his own FLC's in the past, I feel there is no reason to ban it, so long as the nominator thinks carefully before they do it. If it's clear and unaminous, then there's no problem, but any hint of dispute should be left for someone else to judge. As has been pointed out, there's no rush. Tompw (talk) (review) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There's enough users out there who know how to close these things, you shouldnt close your own noms. I brought this up early when this happened, and it was sorta dismissed. I still stand by my belief that you shouldnt close your own. I mean if it is that urgent that you need it closed now, then come and bug me, or some other regular contributor here and if it should be closed then it will be closed. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

US v. U.S.

A recent discussion on Depeche Mode discography prompted this. Please check the Style guide on Wikipedia:

In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. When referring to the country in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned along with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US or U.S. can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the US). When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. USA and U.S.A. are not used unless quoted or part of a proper name (Team USA).

Thanks for your attention, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I've been wondering about that for sometime now... Drewcifer (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop

There is a weekly Signpost column that has some little story about the FA process called the Dispatch. This has since been expanded to include all parts of the featured process and anyone who is interested in contributing stories, ideas, etc. can take a look at the page here. -- Scorpion0422 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Record number of promotions

This has been a record month here at WP:FLC as we had 65 promotions, shattering the previous record of 46 set in January 2008. We also had a the lowest numner of failures since June 2007 - 9 and almost half of those were withdrawls. This was an exceptionally good month as we had more than 40 active FLCs for quite some time, so let's keep up the good work and try to break that record. -- Scorpion0422 10:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)

Hurrah!! WP:FLC pwns Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)
Amen to that TRM! – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzo fan2007-Public (talk • contribs)
I just found this discussion. I'm hoping I helped to contribute to this record :) Gary King (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Credit

Personally, I think there should be a template to recognize the people who nominated/worked on the list after this list is promoted. There is one for featured pictures, so I don't see why note here. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)

Do you mean something like this?--Crzycheetah 14:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)
Not exactly. Something like this - Milks F'avorite Cookie 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)
I don't think that would work for FLC's as they are a collaborative effort. FPs on the other hand are solely the work of an individual. It is much harder to distinguish main contributors for FLs and FAs as many people can offer input, each as valuable as the other. You can put {{User Featured Lists}} or {{User Featured List}} on your user page. Woody (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC-8)

The Supports by PeterSymonds

I feel like I have to voice my opinion on these supports from PeterSymonds for all the lists put forward by Gary King. He seems to be simply supporting every nomination put forward by Gary King without so much as leaving one comment as a review. Also, from the comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Toronto, it looks like the two are working together on that article. I'm not saying WP:Canvassing is going on, but it does look fishy. Obviously, if no other editors have noticed, or are not bothered by it, then I guess it's all okay.

Also, I'm not trying to take away from the lists Gary has put forward, and those that have since been promoted. They have all been worthy of been featured. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed this, but am not bothered by it yet. User:Gary King asks around for a review of the lists he's worked on, which is fine. User:PeterSymonds is just helping Gary out. I see that Peter has not made any edits to that Toronto page, but I just noticed that Gary was asking Peter to support that nomination here. This is a little strange to me.
However, I am a little uneasy about the WP:FOOTBALL members supporting one another. I believe there should be stated somewhere that members of the related wikiprojects should be neutral to the nominations. Yes, they can comment on it, but should not support or oppose. I think it's called conflict of interest.--Crzycheetah 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Gary tends to ask multiple people to look at his articles before he nominates them - PeterSymonds is one of the editors he frequently refers to. I believe it is more or less his honest opinion that goes into his support, as any of the concerns he brings up are addressed before the article is even nominated. As for the WikiProject thing, try to assume good faith. There is definitely the case where there is canvassing, but more often than not, WikiProject reviewers point out things that non-involved editors wouldn't be able to. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what we're doing right now, assuming good faith. As I said, members of related wikiprojects are welcome to make comments, but should not support or oppose. It just looks like vote stacking when in about 2 hours after nomination, about 4-5 suports come up, all from members of a related Wikiproject; doubts start appearing. If it's a great list, then non-involved reviewers will pass it. --Crzycheetah 07:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone should notify me when a discussion is started about me... anyways, to respond to these allegations, I'll just quote myself from my Talk page: "The main issue is the wording I use when I ask others to take a look at my nominations; I shouldn't use 'support or oppose' but rather ask for 'comments'. I'll be changing that from now on.". Basically, I just wasn't sure of how to best word it; please note that in my requests for someone to comment on my nominations, I always requested for either a 'support' or an 'oppose', so I wasn't pushing for one specific result. But, you guys are right in that I should be 'requesting for comments' instead of either one - that is much more neutral. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I should have done that, since I started the topic. It didn't even cross my mind though. I'm not trying to take from what you've already got done either.. it just looked a little odd. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Yep I got a list of editors that I regularly notify when I am looking for comments on my nominations, peer reviews, etc. If any of you guys want to be removed from the list, then just let me know... Gary King (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be part of the review policy that a "support" or "oppose" can't be given without the article in question having being clearly reviewed, ie. posting comments first. And I don't have a problem with asking for support or oppose votes, either.-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 08:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
That's unnecessary I believe. If the list does have actual problems, then a single oppose is enough to sink the article's nomination. The proposal is a bit against WP:AGF in any case. If the votes are blatantly canvassed, then they can be discounted, but let's keep it as is. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that nobody directed me to this discussion. I'd like to point out that my supports are my own choice, based on what I see, and not the result of a prompt by Gary King. If I had serious issues with the candidate, I would oppose; and on some of Gary's nominations, I have suggested comments for Gary to work on, and then supported. In the future, if a discussion is being held about my contributions, please notify me. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Carolina Hurricanes seasons

I put Carolina Hurricanes seasons to WP:FLC. There has been some lively debate and currently the list stands at 3 support and 2 oppose. I am curious what happens now? It doesn't seem the opposition will drop/change their vote. Thanks, PGPirate 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Well, it still has 6 days left, so we'll see when it gets to ten days, but both of the opposers will likely not be ignored as they both seem to have good cases. -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I guess we will wait. Thats why I didn't know what would happen, since both sides have valid arguments. Thanks, PGPirate 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC-7)

A new form of recognition is needed

Hey ive been pointed in your direction by user, dyhydrogen monoxide. A few weeks ago i put a list up for FA lists. It failed so i was told to try the GA nomination list which i then did. It was taken off the list, apparently there isnt any such think as a good list ANYWHERE. I think a GA list award is needed for lists that are good, but not quite good enough. FA is tuff, does that make any list below it rubbish? no of course not. We need a method or recognising these articles. I want to start something for them, call it a new idea or whatever, wikipedia must learn to update and i believe it has an outdated policy on lists. By giving recognition to good lists it encourages people to go that extra mile. Im taking this seriously and i hope you will help. Realist2 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I think the point about not having "Good lists" is that with lists, they are either complete or they are not. There is no middle ground with lists whereas with articles, they need copyediting and more referencing and more fact checking than a list. People who want to go the extra mile go for Featured List status. We are not saying that everything below FL is rubbish, just that they need more work to be "excellent". Woody (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

But isnt that discouraging? There are thousands of lists on wikipedia, only a few are FA, but according to wikipedia all lists below FA are of the same quality. How can that be? Realist2 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Additionaly as wiki gets bigger and bigger there will be more and more lists, the 95% at the bottom are all the same quality and the 5% at the top are excellent. Come on, there has to be something that can be done, thats just not right, it doesnt fit at all. Realist2 (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

The Milhist project use the same assessment scale for lists as it does for everything else. They can be start, B and FL so they are not "all the same quality" and I don't know anybody who thinks they are. There are millions of article on Wikipedia but only 2000 are FA. The thing that has to be done: bring all the lists up to FL, that has to be a long term aim. What would you have the criteria for a "good list" be: it would have to have the same referencing as a FL to be accurate, it would have to be complete, you can't have it missing out bits of information, so what is stopping it being FL? Woody (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Well there is complete and there's 95% complete. If its a 95% complete list thats still quite good, 100% now thats excellent. Realist2 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I agree with Woody, I don't think there is much middle ground quality wise for lists, and having GLs would slow down the entire process quite a bit and we would have quite a few problems with finding reviewers. Out of curiosity, which list is it? -- Scorpion0422 08:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)
The only difference between lists and articles is that there is no GA step. A list can still be rated as a stub, start, or B-class list. The main difference being that lists only have one review-based class rather than two. This seems about right to me. Drewcifer (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Oppose I'd just like to say I oppose an idea of "Good Lists" per the comments above :) Gary King (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I've thought about this question before, but dismissed it for the reasons above. Lack of reviewers, added time to entire process, etc. As of right now, even the FLC community isn't the largest, and it can take weeks to gain consensus. Adding another classification wouldn't help, at least not now. Mastrchf (t/c) 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh FLC

I would like clarification on the FLC process, and am hoping more knowledgeable editors can do this. An editor by the name of Gary King, who isn't an administrator (not that I know there's a need to be one), supported the above list's nomination. A mere forty minutes later, the very same user promoted the article with the summary "promoting List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh (I'd like to try my hand at this, also)". Is this actually allowed? There's a clear conflict of interest here given the fact King supported the nomination, and I question the validity of just "trying one's hand" at promoting. If all aspects of Featured material was conducted in this, then it'd be a shambles. So yeah, what's going on? LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

It's generally frowned upon if an editor promotes a list they voted on where the decision is anything but clear-cut. But in this case Gary King was the 6th support vote compared to 0 opposes, so it was a very uncontroversial move (Remember 4 supports are all that is needed to promote, so even if we strike Gary's vote, the list would still be promoted). To explain the edit summary, Gary King has worked on many featured lists and WP:FLCs, but he had never promoted a list before. So he wanted to try his hand at it. Any user can promote a WP:FL (especially if it is very obvious the result). I see nothing wrong with Gary's actions. That said, you should never promote your own WP:FLC, nor should you close a discussion that you voted in if there is not a clear consensus. Hope this clears it up. Also, it is nice if you have problems with a certain editors actions, to bring it up with that editor first, or at least notify them about this thread (which I will do). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 13:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)
No harm no foul. In cases where the vote isn't so clear-cut, I could imagine a conflict of interest, but this one seems pretty straight-forward and harmless. Drewcifer (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Yeah, I'd appreciate if this was brought to me first. I agree that generally speaking, a person who has voted in a discussion should not also promote or fail it. As Gonzo said, that list was a clear cut pass. I did not intend on introducing any conflict of interest issues; in hindsight, I should not have voted in the nomination. In any case, I chose to promote that list because I have never done it so wanted to try it out since I was involved in WP:FLC a bit, and chose that particular list because it was a clear cut decision. Gary King (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Comprehensive long lists discussion

For those that didn't participate in the recent FLRC for List of Arsenal F.C. players, there is currently a discussion about the issue here. All comments and opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion0422 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Page doesn't look complete yet, specifically the "This discussion has been prompted by problems that arose at FLC and FLRC, specifically at xxxxx and xxxxxx. The detailed debates can be viewed there." part. I wasn't involved with these goings-on so I can't chime in until that information is provided. Gary King (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Variable standard, egregious deficiencies in the process

I've not visited this page since copy-editing the criteria some time ago. I must say that I'm disturbed by the lack of rigour: I see prose and MOS issues all over the place in these nominations, but precious little critical comment. The standard of referencing leaves a lot to be desired in many cases. There are far too many drive-by supports that provide no evidence of even having read the nomination. There's an alarming absence of explicit references to the criteria (by number).

At FAC and FAR/C, we have much higher standards. I wonder whether attaining a star for a list means anything? Tony (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Now Tony, no need to insult all the hard-working reviewers here. Along with the majority of content review processes on Wikipedia, we suffer from a lack of top-quality reviewers. We have as many "drive-by" noms as FAC, you cannot tell whether someone has fully read the text by reading their text. Whilst it works for some, it is a woefully inadequate process by which to judge the majority of reviewers.
By their very nature, prose has never tended to be one of the main problems with featured lists, and the majority of reviewers cannot see the problems you do, as they don't have the requisite knowledge base. To demean the FL star is a bit over the top. If you have issues with lists, then take it to the talkpage. If they aren't acted on, then bring an FLRC in much the same way that the FAR process works. Even better, tackle the issues yourself. Woody (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Thanks for your reply, Woody. I don't for a minute intend to insult hard-working reviewers. The matters concerning me are not those of content. Tony (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I understand that you will have issues with prose and MOS, hell I do sometimes ;), but the only way to tackle that is to entice more quality reviewers to FLC. Woody (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Beggers can't be choosers, there's not much we can do other than hope that some more dedicated reviewers decide to show up. As for the MOS issues and prose, we try our best here, and if you have any issues with any specific lists, you can always leave comments or take them to FLRC. -- Scorpion0422 10:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
If he only had to choose one, I'd rather see Tony1 (talk · contribs) over at WP:FAC than WP:FLC because that's where he's needed most. (Not trying to be sarcastic if it looks that way...) And sure, we could always use some more reviewers, but we've also got some really dedicated ones right now, focusing on more list-related aspects including layout, style, etc. which they have a great eye for. The reviewers that come to mind right now are The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (I think he's supported or opposed every one of my lists so far!), Matthewedwards (talk · contribs), and PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) (although I haven't seen him around as much lately). GaryKing (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I agree that the FLC standards are lower in some respects than those applied at FAC, but I think there is a valid reason for differing standards. That is, a comprehensive list is necessarily far more superficial in its treatment of the individual list elements than a comprehensive article would be. IMO, sourcing for the constituents of a list is generally sufficient if the sources support the definition of the list's scope, the inclusion of each element on the list, and the specific information included in each list entry. It is not necessary to tell a complete and verifiable story about each individual list element.
I don't think that the FLC process should be criticized for lack of explicit references to the criteria, as long as those criteria are being implicitly used in the review process. As to whether those criteria are being implicitly used, I perceive that several of the reviewers who participate regularly in FLC are implicitly using the criteria, but I also think that some "Support" votes are expressions of personal support for the subject matter (a variant of WP:ILIKEIT) or the aesthetic appeal of an article rather than applications of the FLC criteria. Perhaps the Wikipedians who close FLC discussions should adopt a practice of "not counting" support statements from users who have not provided some evaluation against FLC criteria.
I have observed that the recent FL population explosion is due in part to users targeting "low-hanging fruit." That is, a large fraction of the lists nominated for FL status are (1) very similar to existing FLs and/or (2) lists of well-defined finite collections of elements for which there is a single authoritative source. These lists typically get less scrutiny in FLC review than lists that "plow new ground," presumably because there is less need for scrutiny.
I perceive a tendency among reviewers to emphasize the technical and aesthetic aspects of lists (which can be particularly difficult for FLs -- in this respect, the FLC process may be more demanding than that for FAs), while de-emphasizing content and style in the associated article text. In my reviews, I often particularly emphasize criterion 2a (lead section), both because I think it is important and because it seems to get short shrift from other reviewers. --Orlady (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Did you really have to sign all of your paragraphs? It makes it look like you're having a conversation with yourself :) Gary King (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
(Smile). As long as you feel that way, I removed my sigs from individual paragraphs. I did that in anticipation of responses to specific paragraphs... --Orlady (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I don't agree with much of what Orlady wrote. There needs to be a culture of resisting a waterfall of nominations that aren't up to scratch. At FAC, if there aren't enough reviews, it's a difficult situation, and we don't see how an article can be comfortably promoted without proper analysis. Supports don't count nearly as much as the resolution of critical comments. It's justifiable, IMV, to maintain high standards. Why don't we discuss strategies to tighten up what happens here? Tony (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Could you point to a recently promoted list so we have a working example? Gary King (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Which parts of my comments don't you agree with, Tony? I wrote 4 paragraphs of comments both supportive and critical of the current process, so it is unlikely you disagree with all of it. As it happens, my opposition has been responsible for preventing several FLCs from becoming FLs, and in order to help resolve my concerns about other FLCs I've become a major contributor to some of them. I have learned to refrain from commenting on lists where I have little knowledge of or interest in the subject matter (e.g., discographies, sports team rosters, TV episodes) because following up on comments can become a major time sink, and I don't want to be committed to follow-up on lists about which I am profoundly ignorant and that don't even vaguely interest me. --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Coming here and complaining does little to nothing except for make people who work here (the man who is "in the arena") angry, feel under-appreciated, and degraded. By all means, if you have direct examples then show them. I am sure there are many people who would be glad to try and fix lists that you feel have problems but coming here and saying what you said makes you look like a Monday morning quarterback. I mean come on, isn't the whole premise of this encyclopedia to be WP:BOLD if you see a mistake? I mean seriously, if Scorpion or Matthew or the Rambling Man came here and said that there are problems, I would listen because they are "in the arena" doing the dirty work. But you come here complaining about our process, having one edit to a WP:FLC in as long as I can remember, makes me just annoyed. Listen to our old pal Theo and first get in the arena before you criticize our system. Also, if you are going to criticize something, it is best to give some evidence, so that we can address your concerns. Criticism without evidence is pointless and does nothing to help the process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Well said, Gonzo. I'd like to say that, as someone who submits FLCs, I am always willing to accept constructive criticism for my lists, as long as it helps to improve them. That's the whole point of this process. As I've mentioned, I've had two lists fail because they didn't meet the standards, and I find those moments as great learning experiences. Also, it helps to have as many eyes on list candidates as possible, because quite often someone working on a list for a few days or weeks might overlook a few things because they have become so attached to a layout that they have decided for the list. FLC will always play second fiddle to FAC, and that's the way it should be, but FLC could always use more help. Gary King (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
My computer's playing games on me, so until I reformat the harddrive tomorrow I won't comment much here, other than saying thank you to Gary and Gonzo for their confidence in me and my abilities to review and support/oppose as I see fit.
I think I've commented in 90% of the nominations since September last year (which is when I nominated my first list). I almost always make an attempt to give a "peer review" before making a decision, if I don't, it's because I've taken part in a Peer Review proper, or everyone else has covered everything. The MOS is something I always take into consideration, there may be things I miss, but I have confidence in the other regular reviewers that when I do, someone else won't. I'm a stickler for WP:CS, WP:MOS and especially WP:MOSNUM, WP:LEAD, WP:DASH and a number of others when something jumps out of the screen at me, even if it's a list about a subject I have no knowledge, I'll always try to find something that will improve.
There are a number of other regulars to the project who I feel do a good job, and always welcome and respect their comments in my nominations, and those from other people. I won't say who, because it's likely I'll forget some, and I don't want to do that.
To not take part in the reviews and nominations, and then come along and rag on the people who do is very disrespectful. I suggest you (a) take part in the FLC process, then criticize; (b) be less vague and name some people who's reviews you have issues with; (c) be less vague and name some promoted lists you have issues with; (d) take part in the FLC process; (e) open up Peer Reviews for the lists you feel are substandard; (f) take them to WP:FLRC; (g) Be bold and edit the lists to how you feel they should be; and (h) take part in the FLC process.
Saying that, it slightly bothers me that all is needed is four supports including the nomination to promote. I don't think it's enough and it should be raised to six maybe, but there aren't enough people who take part in the process for that to happen. There are some lists here well after ten days with only one support other than the nominator's. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Actually, another thing that bothers me is when members from a WikiProject come along and support, just because the list is a part of that project. I'm not talking about any particular specific one, I just notice when it happens. But this and other one-timers is hardly fair to pick on us about it, and you are, because only the regulars to this project will have this page watchlisted, and only us will bother to take part in this thread. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC-7)

(←)Matthew, I agree with every point you made, especially the last one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I also agree with Matthew's comments. In particularly I also must agree that to come complain if you don't personally take part in the reviews and nominations regularly is akin to whining about who won the election if you didn't bother to vote. I also agree on the last bit. Now I will generally look at any list for the Anime and Manga project, my core work area, and the Television project, another area of interest. However, I will never just support because it is in the project and will look over them with a very critical eye. I think being part of the project should, in fact, mean being pickier on the lists (and articles for GA/FA) that are in our project that go to FL, as it reflects on the project as a whole. I'm also probably a rather harsh reviewer in PRs for the same reason. Pride in my work and wanting my project to reflect our best work, not our best vote plugging. Unfortunately, I know there are other projects and maybe even people in our project who do just as Matthew says and votes support just because its a project page. I don't know if the supports need to go up from 4 to 6, or if just discounting any support that is nothing more than "support" and a signature without any substance. Occasionally I've seen a list that I felt was good, but I'll still note why I feel its ready as is and that I could find no fault. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

  • Some reviewers here are framing themselves as being "in the arena", but surely the nominators are that and the reviewers are critics (or they should be). It's clear from the comments above that drive-by supports are a problem. I disagree that FLC should somehow cast itself as playing second fiddle to FAC: it should be entirely equal. But for that to be the case, a tighter, more critical culture needs to evolve. Tony (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Further comment: The FA instructions make interesting reading in relation to this debate:

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in their judgment:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

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.

Tony (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

To address a few points:
  • Thank you so much Tony for that wonderful lecture on how the FA process works, I'm sure you have really enlightened all of us here.
  • Just to clear it up, Mr. Roosevelt was talking about how useless the man who is a critic of a process he is not part of and how the man who actually does the work deserves better than the critic. For the sake of our great president, please don't misconstrue what he said (i.e. the person who complains about his politicians but never voted in the election).
  • You failed to address any of the concerns brought up by your peers.
  • You failed to give any direct evidence to support your claims.
  • Can you stop complaining and give some evidence/support/certain lists that you feel are inadequate. I am sure the people here would have a tad more respect for you and what you are saying if you participated in the process and gave us examples to work off of. Right now your just annoying people. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Although to be fair, overall, I think having discussions like this is better than not having any at all. We really have to review the WP:FAC and WP:FLC processes every so often to see where we can tweak them to make them better. And regarding my comment on FLC playing second fiddle, what I was trying to get across was that if we had to split reviewers between the two, then FAC should have higher importance. I understand that 'equality' is preferred with the two, but on the other hand, I don't want to see a mad drove of reviewers come to FLC when the current balance is more or less working out fairly well. Gary King (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
My main point is dont fix something that isnt broke, and Tony has failed to show me that the FLC process is broke. By all means, if there were examples I would love to review the process and have loads and loads of discussion on how we can make it better. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I'd also really like to see which lists, or which nominations he has issues with. And if it's the criteria that is the problem, then that needs working on, instead of telling the regular folk here that they're failing. If they are failing, its because of the criteria, not the disregard of it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

WikiProject Discographies

At the risk of blatant WikiProject advertisement, I thought I'd let everyone know about the new Discography WikiProject. As far as I know this is the first list-based WikiProject, so I thought it was worth mentioning. There's been alot of scattered discussion about discography style as of late, so I hope this project can act as a central hub for those discussions, and once consensus is reached, to provide a style guide of some sort. Anyways, take a look and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)

There is a lists WikiProject, but they don't do much. As for a style guide, that would be a huge help because we see a lot of variety among some of the discographies that pass through here. -- Scorpion0422 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC-7)
As long as it's thoroughly reviewed and compliant with, you guessed it, the manual of style! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

FL Criterion 1 a bombsite

Well, I set about examining a few recently promoted lists in response to the requests (and what verges on a personal attack) above. The first thing was to put the criteria up on one side of my monitor. Um ... problems with Criterion 1 before I even started. Here it is:

A featured list ... has the following attributes:

  1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
    • (a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list:
    1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
    2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or
    3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles
    • (b) "Comprehensive" means that ...


  • Most obviously, you don't want the numbering system to duplicate itself on different levels. 1. (a) 1. violates the first principle of presenting a hierarchy. Can someone change the lowest level to lower-case roman numberals, please (I tried, but am unsure how to do it)? 1. (a) (i). But perhaps it won't be necessary—read on.
  • The first bolded item, "useful", is not right; I mean, it's the wrong word to encapsulate what is clearly intended in the explanation. I think the best way out of this is to turn the wrongly named "useful" point into a Criterion by itself, as I've exemplified below.
  • Please tell me whether the "For example" does in fact introduce a complete list of the three ways in which a list might cover a topic (the use of "or" after the second item makes me suspect that this is the case). If so, the wording should be changed. I find it difficult not knowing whether there are other ways, not stated.
  • How does a list bring together a group of existing articles? Seems to say that the full text should be pasted onto the page.
  • What are "entry criteria"?
  • "the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced"—the inclusion of what? The timeline? The events? Is "objectively" the right epithet, given our well-worked-out policy on verification?
  • Does "of study" add anything?
  • Is the first clause in the third example ("contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study") not applicable to all lists? Does it not apply when the members of the set are sufficiently notable to have individual articles (second clause, dependent)?
  • The final period in 1 is missing.

I can only second-guess what a new Criterion 1 should look like:


A featured list ... has the following attributes.

  1. It comprises a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a topic, by either:
    • (a) drawing on information from a group of existing articles related by well-defined [entry criteria]; or
    • (b) comprising a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced.
  2. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
    • (a) "Comprehensive" means that ...

Tony (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)

All very good points. I agree that we should take a hard look at the criteria to 'streamline' them more. Also, I noticed that the criteria for FLC is longer than the one for FAC, yet has fewer points when summed up. Another goal of ours should be to say more with less words; this encourages people to actually read the criteria if they are more concise but say essentially the same thing as before. Gary King (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
    • Two quick comments:
      • Active participants in FLC discussions have not been having difficulty interpreting these criteria, although there is ongoing discussion (it's around here somewhere) regarding the need to clarify 1.a.3 ("contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together...") to indicate that such a list may include some elements that are sufficiently notable to have individual articles.
      • If you would like to nitpick the criteria, please take care not to misuse the word "comprise." ;-)
--Orlady (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Tony, I think it's great that you've dedicated some time away from WP:FAC to help us improve standards here at WP:FLC. Would you be prepared to go over a couple of FLC's right now, regardless of the current criteria (imagine, if you can, you're reviewing a micro-FAC), and let us know what affronts you most? I think most of us are aware of you invaluable contributions at FAC but time after time people have asked for more specific advice. I know you're not a single-handed copyeditor but you presumably accept that since most FAC's are in need of your 1a help, most FLC's will be completely overlooked. I understand the sentiments you have expressed here and look forward to you working with us to help improve our standards. However, your "bomb dropping" seemed a little confrontational (in an impersonal manner) and thus you've elicited some rather negative responses. Regardless of how you feel about the process here, we're all dedicated to doing our best and doing the best for Wikipedia. This is not a "featured factory" where anyone can slip by MOS, grammar, etc but I'm sure most FLC reviewers welcome your constructive and educating input to our processes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
In terms of actually commenting on the content of your text, I do think that the suggested amended criteria are much more concise and clear. I do think that the current FLC debate will need to be factored in though if it concludes that we need to tighten up the existing criteria. I think this is an excellent start though. Thanks Tony. Woody (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Orlady, here is one of the relevant discussions: Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1. Gary King (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Response to Orlady: You may choose to characterise my comments as nit-picking, but that is the last refuge of lazy writers; I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if a film were peppered with little editing glitches. In any case, the matters I've raised concern basic structure and meaning, as well as issues at the clause level. I don't know how either reviewers or nominators make sense of the first criterion, so fixing it up is one of the urgent issues to address rather than taking pot-shots at your messenger. Where have I misused the word "comprise"?
Thanks for the other comments; I really don't have the experience here to determine how the unresolved issues should be addressed ("entry criteria", "which", etc.). That is for the experts. And is it the case that there are three, and only three, ways in which a topic is appropriate? Fine if so, but you need to confirm this. Tony (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Orlady, we also have Wikipedia:Featured list criteria/Comprehensive long lists which is being developed to address the Arsenal FLC concerns as well. Woody (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
That page has not been updated in a few days already. I think we are making more progress here than there. Generally speaking, it's better to spread out similar discussions as little as possible so that we can involve as many people as possible. True, another page may help organize things, but it also slows down the process — especially when the other page is only edited by a few people, and therefore may not actually represent the views of a wider range of editors who regularly visit FLC. Gary King (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I would like to bring up the discussion that Orlady mentioned above; there was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Question regarding criteria 1a1 and 1a3 regarding the wording of 1a1 and 1a3: can a list could meet the criteria if some items are existing articles brought together per entry criteria, and some entries are a well-defined set of items that fit together, but are not notable enough to have their own articles? Existing FLs, including List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of Shetland islands, List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester all have some entries with articles and some without. There seemed to a be a small consensus to change the wording to something along the lines of: "a list must contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where all or some of the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." If the criteria is changed, perhaps this possible change could also be taken into account? What are other editors' thoughts on this? The last discussion did not really get a large level of participation. Cheers, Rai•me 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC-7)
So, let me get this straight... Based on the new list criteria set out by Raime, none of our current lists of animals/plants/other species for a particular region (country, park, state, province, whatever) will ever qualify for FL, regardless of how well they're constructed or sourced or illustrated. According to "notability" criteria, each list entry (a species of some kind) is worthy of its own article—and now, it's apparently been proposed that "a list must contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where all or some of the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". How is that reasonable?! Are you chucking the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to be able to keep lists of sports teams?! MeegsC | Talk 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
MeegsC, you seem to have misunderstood my proposal. Perhaps I should have been clearer. Criterion 1a1 would not be changed. Obviously, lists that contain items which all have articles would not fail to meet the criteria. Only the wording of 1a3 would be changed. And this would have nothing to do with sports lists - per WP:ATHLETE, all professional sports players are notable, and would not fall into the category where "where all or some of the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". Currently, FLs meet the criteria if all entries have articles, the list is a timeline, or no entries have articles. But where does that leave FLs such as List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford, where the tallest building in the city is notable and deserving of its own article, but the 10th tallest structure in the city has no claim of notability and therefore does not have its own article? My proposal only seeks to change the third criterion, to encompass the several FLs which include some notable and some non-notable entries. Cheers, Rai•me 13:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Thanks Raime, for clarifying that. What had confused me was that Tony had incorporated your comments into his rewritten criteria 1, and eliminated a separate 1a3. Now that he's rewritten that again, and you've weighed in, I feel better about things! : ) MeegsC | Talk 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I've always understood 1a1, 1a2 and 1a3 as being three alternatives; either (1) the list contains items which all have articles, or (2) it is a timeline, or (3) it lists items which aren't individually notable enough to have articles, but when brought together form a significant topic of study. Unless I'm misinterpreting what Tony's done, separating off a rewritten 1a3 as new criterion 1 in the coloured box above, such that a featured list requires at least one non-notable component, would preclude complete lists of notable items, such as species lists or lists of sports team head coaches, ever qualifying for featured status. Agreed, all lists should "comprise a ... set of items that naturally fit together to form a topic", but that's where the sentence should finish. Then 1a3 should be rewritten to allow some or all items to be non-notable. Something like:
A featured list ... has the following attributes.
  1. It comprises a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a topic.
  2. It covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List) by either:
    • (a) drawing on information from a group of existing articles related by well-defined [entry criteria]; or
    • (b) setting out a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or
    • (c) drawing together items which form a notable topic when considered as a set, but where some or all members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles.
  3. ...
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • OK, got it from both of you. But I think there's a problem in:
      • the notion that a topic itself can lend itself to list format—seemed a bit forced to me, even circular.*setting up a, b and c in opposition to each other; i.e., only one can apply.
    • allocating some of the phrases exclusively among these three either/or points—can't they be mixed and matched? Why are timelines given special mention? (Why are they different from the inclusion of all other items of information?)
    • interpreting just what "a group of existing articles related by well-define entry criteria" means—why not just "a group of related articles"?
    • requiring only items on a timeline to be objectively sourced in their inclusion in the list (what, individual citations for each, demonstrating their appropriateness as list members?); in any case, isn't all information on WP subject to our rules on verification and citation? (Only extra requirements need to be specified here.)
    • the link to WP:Lists, which should surely be to one particular section of that article—can it be included further down in the criteria?
    • the inclusion of "complete", which is already covered by the "comprehensive: point in the subsequent Criterion 2.

It's almost as though the whole of Criterion 1 needs to be swept away and replaced by a simple statement:

A featured list ... has the following attributes.

  1. It comprises a finite and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a notable topic.
  2. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
    • (a) "Comprehensive" means that ...

Tony (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Perhaps usefulness is an appropriate concept. I'd be concerned if streamlining 1.a resulting in allowing a list of individually-notable items, which currently would have to satisfy 1.a.1 (bringing together existing articles), to come to FLC with swathes of red/blacklinks. A list of sports coaches, say, might be comprehensive, factually accurate, and all the rest, but it isn't much use to the reader if most of the names are redlinked so he/she can't find out more about each one even though all are notable enough to have an article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 05:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
"Usefulness" is, I think, too vague by itself. If swathes of redlinks are a potential problem, why not spell this out further down? Tony (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Yes, sorry, I was thinking out loud about why the criteria might have been set out like that in the first place, not advocating keeping usefulness as a specific criterion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Another problem: "finite" appears to conflict with the notion of "dynamic lists". How can this be? Tony (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Tony, I haven't been around for the last five days, but I just want to say that now you've pointed out the parts you have found to be problematic, it's good that we folk here can now make an attempt to make the FLC process better. You may have felt like I was one of those who engaged in a "personal attack" on you, and if that's so I apologise, though at first that's how it felt for a lot of us! Regards -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Arbitrary break

I've just come across this discussion. Yes the wording could be improved, but Tony's clean sweep version throws away far too much. Most lists are only "useful" on WP if they provide a navigation service to existing articles. And the problem with "finite" has only arisen with this form of words. Colin°Talk 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, may I be tedious and ask you to enlarge on your observations? Specifically: (1) should "navigational function" be explicitly mentioned as a criterion? Would that solve the issue? (I still think "useful" is just too vague.); and (2) how is the incompatibility of "finite" with "dynamic list" as now dependent on the current wording? Tony (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, Tony. I didn't have much time to write much but was concerned to add a quick "hold on" just in case I came back to find the FLC rewritten.
Many moons ago, the 1a criterion said
"Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic (see Wikipedia:List). A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)."
After some discussion it was changed to what we have now. And it is close to text I suggested, so you can all blame me! I've never had a problem with "useful" as an overriding goal. Lists are often not very interesting but they may still be useful. An FA that isn't interesting should fail. Right from the start of FLC, consensus was that on WP a list must serve a navigational purpose, and for that to be actually useful (rather than potentially useful) it should be to a majority of blue-link articles.
Timelines (of which there are only a few) don't fit that model as the individual events tend not to be notable enough in themselves. That didn't stop a few being promoted, probably via WP:IAR. 1a2 is designed to accommodate timelines and the "objectively sourced" rule is to try to discourage OR on the threshold for event inclusion. It is a tricky one and we haven't had many timelines to test whether that rule is necessary or not. The "objectively" refers to the editor being neutral; it doesn't rule out citing a source that subjectively lists events. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.
The last criterion was added to accommodate the relatively few lists that reviewers felt were worthy but could never satisfy the original rule, as their entries were not notable enough to deserve articles. To date, the literary bibliographies are the best examples of these. I see there has been some recent debate over problems with such a list where a few of the entries were wikilinked. Perhaps this last criterion can be rephrased to make that OK. But we need to ensure that doesn't defeat 1a1's requirements. At the time of adding 1a3, I was concerned it would open the door to trivia lists (film credits, bus timetables, etc) so added the "significant topic of study" restriction and the "finite, complete and well-defined set". I didn't want this to apply to dynamic lists (where someone could add another entry tomorrow). I think "finite" isn't the best word, since most subjects are finite (and certainly all lists are finite in their implementation) but the scope is unbounded or unmanageably huge. I'm trying to say that the set's size is knowable (and so we can determine if the list is complete), of manageable size (so a complete list would be possible on WP) relatively stable and uncontroversial. I hope you see why some of the restrictions in this criterion would not be helpful if applied to all lists (it would eliminate quite a number). We're trying to say that we allow lists without blue links only in limited circumstances.
You ask if these are the only three forms of usefulness allowed. IMO, no. But they define the properties of three kinds of list that consensus determined are useful to WP. If your list doesn't fit, then it may be opposed. I like to think it still allows some wiggle room for nominators and reviewers to agree that a list is useful and worthy of promotion even if it doesn't exactly fit the mould.
The 1a criteria have been stable for over a year and I'm not aware they cause much of a problem. They are quite important and oft quoted. If rewriting them, we should ensure we neither cause good lists to be removed nor allow non-useful lists to be promoted. Whew! Does that help? Colin°Talk 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 2

Criterion 2: "controversial" might imply that the topic can't be controversial (List of abortion rates in US states). What is meant is that the inclusion criteria are uncontested, yes? The linked article appears to cover controversial topics. Tony (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Newly promoted list—is this the typical standard?

List_of_acquisitions_by_Apple_Inc.

  • Is it normal to follow the heading by exactly the same words at the opening? It's a really gripping start (frankly, I'd be irritated as a visitor).
Heading: List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.
First line: "This is a list of acquisitions by Apple Inc.".
    • Yes, it is. What change would you suggest? --Golbez (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Second sentence: "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." What does "respective company" mean here? I'm totally confused.
  • "listed in US$ because"—Shouldn't it be spelt out properly? The "US" is almost unnecessary (see MOS), and certainly should not be repeated, which it is.
  • "Apple has been a computer hardware company from its founding to the early 2000s,.."—Um, when did it stop?
    • When it became a media company with iTunes; that's what caused the final lawsuit with Apple Corps, actually. --Golbez (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • "and hired other companies to build parts computer parts such as central processing units, computer memory, and hard disk drives"—parts computer parts. Good one. Is computer memory a computer part?
    • Actually computer memory most definitely is a computer part, as is a hard disk, a graphics card, a sound card etc. The first "parts", however, can go, and already has. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • None of the three "thens" is necessary.
  • "NeXT was a computer hardware company founded by Steve Jobs after being removed from Apple as chairman; he is also the founder of Apple"—Was the computer hardware company removed? Better "after his removal from". The last clause dangles and would be better properly integrated into the first mention of Jobs.
  • "as being acquired as"—clumsy rep.
  • "The majority" is much vaguer than the info provided in the "country" column—almost misleading—so why bother stating it?
  • 13? I count 14 in the list.
  • Consideration might have been given to removing the "country" column (just state the two of the ?13 that aren't in the US) and abbreviating the host of zeros; that way, the 2008 inflation-adjusted equivalent could have been accommodated.
  • The data at the bottom, starting "Annual revenue" (small r, please—see MOS): shouldn't a year be provided for each?
  • The first two refs I sampled: 8 looks like a blogsite (convince me that it's authoritative); 14, the authors are not stated in list.

If this is what is being promoted, I'm appalled. Tony (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Ummm...that list has not been promoted, it is still in the candidacy phase, so why not post those comments to its FAC as an oppose? AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Ummm ... from my watchlist: "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎; 01:43 . . (-219) . . Scorpion0422 (Talk | contribs) (Promoted List of acquisitions by Apple Inc., failed Green Wing (series 2))" Tony (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I'm guessing (hoping) that was a mistype, since the list does not have the minimum number of supports at all, and, as you pointed out, is not FL ready at all. If it is promoted, I'd want to se it sent to review for delisting. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • PS Here's the diff. My, it seems to be a chaotic system. Tony (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
    It is not chaotic Tony, it is the same system as FAC. It was closed with the requisite 3 supports + nom. All of your commenst would have been much more useful on the nompage. As it is, you could ask Scorpion to reverse it before Gimme gets to it. Woody (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
    I thought it was 4 + nom? I think it needs to be reversed, though. (We do need to add something like what was recently added to FAC, with some kind of "closing" comments to indicate its closed, because I couldn't tell and left an oppose :P )AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Okay Tony1, here is what you can do: Start commenting in all of these "terrible lists" before they are promoted so that all of your concerns are met. Frankly, your constant complaining about the FL process is becoming both insulting and irritating. Yes, we know you don't think FLs are as good as FAs, but why don't you start helping to improve the lists rather than making examples here?

And as for our "chaotic" system, we follow the exact same promotion proceedures that they do at WP:FAC. Against my better judgement, I have reversed the promotion, so I suggest working with Gary King and trying to help him improve it. -- Scorpion0422 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Now look here, I was pestered above—rather unpleasantly—to provide an example of poor standards in FLCs, and this was the first one that came up. I've done what you asked. Don't complain, and don't abuse me ("constant bitching"); you've got a nerve. And I'm not here to take orders from the likes of you, thanks very much. You might look inwards, both at yourself and at this process, rather that issuing personal attacks; take note of WP:NPA. Tony (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Well you see, this is the FLC process, so next time leave comments in the FLC. How am I trying to order you around? I merely suggested that you start commenting in the places you are supposed to, rather than complaining here after they get promoted. As well, perhaps you should start practising what you preach, because you have been less than civil here with your comments about our "chaotic system". -- Scorpion0422 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I see that someone has pointed out on my talk page, below your hysterical post, that it's impossible to review an article that has already been promoted, and already promoted it was. Tony (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Oh, and is this a new rule you've just come up with about requiring permission to comment on newly promoted lists? Tony (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Did I say that? -- Scorpion0422 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I saw this link on Tony's talk page; now why are some of our best editors in a jam with each other? :-) Just to clarify something: ... it is the same system as FAC. It was closed with the requisite 3 supports + nom. It was my understanding (unless this has changed) that there is a fundamental difference between FAC and FLC, in that FLC has no director/delegate position to determine consensus, rather that lists are automatically promoted based on vote count and no outstanding opposes. If I'm wrong about how FLC works, pls disregard, but there is no automatic number that will get any article promoted or archived at FAC. I suggest this is a fundamental flaw at FLC, that allows for vote stacking, and that y'all should appoint a director, as Raul once suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Sandy, I agree. And while it may upset us all, there's nothing invalid in Tony's points. He also categorically states that he doesn't "usually copyedit articles". It often leads to upset at FAC where Tony will appear to drop a bomb on a FAC with his eagle eyes. We mustn't, however, become petulant and cry foul. Similarly, Tony must acknowledge that WP:FAC is woefully short of copyeditors, expectations of volunteers appearing to copyedit at FLC are even lower which is a shame. The inevitable conclusion to that is either standards will be inevitably lower or lists will take longer (perhaps a lot longer) than FACs to meet Tony's (and FAC's) expected standards. That's my take on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I don't mind copyediting FLs, although I'd rather point out the issues at FLC, and let the nominators learn. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Which part do you agree: that FLC needs a director? If that's the case, let's put that in motion. There are several obvious choices, but this needs to garner broad community consensus across several pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I agree with pretty much all you said Sandy, but yes, no reason why FLC shouldn't formalise itself a little more than it currently appears and appoint a director (or two). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
A director would be a good idea. It would help a great deal to ensure quality passes, even if there are a number of supports. It's something I've been silently thinking for a while. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I think most of the issues at List of acquisitions by Apple Inc. have been addressed. Also, I disagree with Rambling Man that it might take longer to meet high copyediting standards here than it would at FAC. FLC has less prose and therefore should not be as difficult to copyedit :) Gary King (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Fair there's less prose but since FAC doesn't have enough copyeditors for their demand, and you, Gary, generate an FLC per day (not necessarily a bad thing!), I think we'll struggle to meet Tony's exacting standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Hey...! I resent that :| I think I've been fairly responsive in all of my FLCs to date, even better than some of my critics :p Plus, a rising tide lifts all boats. Tony has also put me through the paces a few times over at FAC, and it looks like he's passed one of my nominations there just a few hours ago, so I'll take that as a good sign that I'm learning a thing or two about copyediting :) Gary King (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • My standards are being framed as something stratospheric, whereas in reality they're just normal standards of professional writing in English. "Professional standards of writing and formatting" are explicit requirements at FAC, but I really don't see how WP can survive as an authority on the Internet if anything less applies to all of its featured content. It's hard to achieve, and as you'll see from my user page, I like people to correct my prose where it can be improved. But let's face it, there's a lot less prose to check and copy-edit in FLCs than FACs. FAC reviewers have been promoting a culture of collaboration with copy-editors by nominators (better before nomination, but unfortunately all too often during), which has markedly improved standards on that front. Other experts in citations/sourcing have weighed in over the past year to enforce the two relevant criteria, which has transformed the standards.
  • We need to get a start on this process. I am an outsider and have no time to participate on a regular basis at FLC, but I'm willing to support the process by assisting in the fixing up of the criteria (that is a high priority) and in the establishment of a directorate. I agree with Rambling Man that two experienced reviewers would be a good start in these positions. Is the next step to advertise this move at VP (policy)? I can frame a short text for the consideration of regular participants here. Tony (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I'm all for anything that will get the ball rolling. 'Tis better to hold discussions than to have none at all! Gary King (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
So, who's it gonna be ? I've never followed this page, so I may miss someone, but I know that Woody, Scorpion, The Rambling Man and Colin are the names I've most often encountered as being heavily involved and very knowledgeable on the standards. If this goes to Village Pump, I'd support any of them. (I don't know who else may be heavily involved.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I'm just borrowing a computer here. Viruses have eaten mine away, but I'm getting it back tomorrow which is why I haven't commented yet. I think The Rambling Man, Scorpion and CrzyCheetah would make good directors. I haven't seen much of Woody's and Colin's work, here or elsewhere on Wikipedia so I can't say for those. I'd also like to throw my name into the mix if no-one objects. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Matthew I object :P jkjk, I would support Matthew, Scorpion or CrzyCheetah (I would also support The Rambling Man as long as he doesn't have too much else on his plate). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Hold the phone a sec. I've been avoiding jumping into this whole debate so far, but then I notice that buried under all of the above the topic has changed from low standards to problems with the FL criteria back to low standards and now to an FL Director? That last bit seems like something that should be decided on elsewhere. And, by elsewhere I just mean at least in it's own subheading or something, to facilitate a decent discussion/consensus about the whole thing. I've been trying to follow this whole thing, but that one kind of crept up on me! Drewcifer (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

People are just listing potential nominees. I think the general consensus is that we still plan on holding a more official discussion on that before making any major decisions. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Ok, maybe I just panicked there! I guess my point was that if we really wanted to improve the FLC process (which am 100% behind), we need to be a little bit more organized about it. There's alot of good ideas so far (and kudos to Tony for fighting the good fight), and I wouldn't want those ideas go to waste. Drewcifer (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Drewcifer, problems with the FL criteria are directly responsible for the low standards, apart, of course, from the lack of reviewers. I don't think these two are too irrelevant to be discussed in the same thread. Waltham, The Duke of 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
It's not a matter of relevancy, it's a matter of staying on-topic and actually getting stuff accomplished. If everything from A-Z is discussed in the same thread, nothing will get fully fleshed out because the discussion will be a moving target. Drewcifer (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_3&oldid=1190114432"