Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"At risk" FLCs

Hello all, I'm about to start an audit of featured lists. That means I'll start back in 2005 and head forwards. Those lists which are way off-standard will go to WP:FLRC. Those who need a few tweaks will get talkpage comments and a note here to allow the community to see the list needs attention. Chances are that these lists will also make the FL summary too. Please help us to keep our older lists up to standard. It looks like most lists are salvageable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FLC tagged for speedy deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – FLC is not DRV. Take any further discussion there The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to really look into this, but List of countries by future HDI projections of UN, a current FLC has been tagged by the main contributor for CSD G7. He has also tagged Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by future HDI projections of UN/archive1. I've only noticed because I've reviewed, and the CSD tag has been placed between <noinclude> tags so it doesn't show up as such at WP:FLC. IMO G7 doesn't apply any longer because there's been quite a few editors to both pages. If there's an admin free, could you look into it please? Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is gone as of about 3 minutes ago. Maybe this deletion needs to be reviewed? Imzadi 1979 → 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
G7 didn't apply, as there were multiple authors, and the page was not blanked. This should be restored if someone brings it to the attention of the deleting admin. — KV5 • Talk • 20:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Admin pinged. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've rejected the FLC speedy as G7 (one substantial author) is not true. The reviewers are definately substantial contributions. The case is interesting, though, if the page is deleted the FLC could qualify under G8. However, I suggest the best bet is regardless of the article state to archive the nomination as a normal fail would be (and I'll get that done now). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
@KV5, you're wrong! I'm the author of the substantial content of the page List of countries by future HDI projections of UN! Do you know of any other author of the substantial content of the page? There's none! Cohneli (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
What about this edit or this edit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Cohneli (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss possibly incorrect deletions. It's irrelevant that it was a FLC, if anyone wants content undeleted, go to WP:DRV. The discussion here is nugatory. If it's undeleted, it'll still be a FLC, if not, then, well, not. Take it to the correct place. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I don't understand why it was discussed here at all. It should only be discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. Cohneli (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This all came about because the user had also CSD'd the FLC page which I declined. The subject of the candidacy in question (then deleted) has since been restored and, as TRM says, that article's un/deletion has nothing to do with here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2010 (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.

Citation as criteria

see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Remove_citation_as_criteria JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominators, please look after your FLCs

The days during which I spend 15–20 minutes asking reviewers to revisit FLCs are coming to an end; I simply don't have the time. Nominators, please take it upon yourself to ask reviewers to revisit FLCs if they have not done so recently; I would hate to have to archive nominations as unsuccessful because reviewers are not returning. Of course, I strongly encourage reviewers to watchlist FLCs at which they have commented as well. Best, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last chance to vote in the Arbitration Committee Elections

This weekend is the final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee. Voting began last Friday and will close just before midnight UTC, end of Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Current FLC

Hello. Basically this is a bit of a request. List of million-selling singles in the United Kingdom is currently at FLC but doesn't look that close to being promoted. I'll be off-wiki fairly long-term in about a week and, ideally, I'd like to get it wrapped up by then (but realise that is unlikely and the era of 11 day noms is well past). Two things: I'd greatly appreciate any reviews in the next few days which I hope to promptly address and, secondly, if it isn't promoted before I go would anyone watch over it fixing any minor issues that arise (of course if there are major things then it may need to be withdrawn/failed but I hope that won't happen). Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Any takers...? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty busy over the next couple weeks (exams), but seeing as no one has piped up, I'll do what I can. Jujutacular talk 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Santana discography

hello,

I have nominated this list since December 6, 2010 and received only one oppose until now. Sometimes I think, the users didn't see this nomination. Can you close the comments above, if you think the things are corrected, please? And if the 10th day will end and this won't receive any more comments, will this list be deleted, or not? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, as you can see, we have open nominations from a couple of months back, we're a bit short on reviewers at the moment. We'll try to get some more interest in it! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How many supports are needed to close an FL?

How many supports are needed to close an FL? I'm wondering since my nominee has attracted few opposes or negative comments, but for some reasons, few are officially supporting it's candidacy for FL.... Again, how many FL's are needed to close an FL early? --TIAYN (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a set number of supports that is required for a candidate to pass. Rather, "For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus" (from WP:FLC). — KV5 • Talk • 16:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Awards lists

Any advice (seriously...) for me in regards to this project I am working on (see the Grammy Awards section of the Projects page on my profile)? Not only am I trying to get all articles for Grammy categories to GA or FL status, but I am participating in the 2011 WikiCup. I have not been working on Grammy lists lately, mostly because I still have a backlog of lists that need to be put through the FLC process, and I am saving my energy and work until 2011 comes so that my work gets credit for the competition. I can and thoroughly enjoy whipping out Grammy-related lists quickly, but I can really only get 2-3 through the FL process in a month. For both the WikiCup competition and my own Grammy project, should I just keep a place of "completed" (FLC worthy) lists somewhere and keep putting them through one at a time? In all honesty, I don't intend to win the WikiCup competition, and my work is really just for the benefit of Wikipedia, but I didn't know if cranking out so many lists is really just putting a strain on the FLC process, reviewers, FL directors, etc. Any thoughts or advice? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a real strain on anything. You've seen so many good lists through to completion, it's really just a case of fact-checking and MOS-checking and all that jazz. Problem comes from a lack of FL community, which makes it (currently) a bit of a challenge for the directors to be sure there's a "consensus" to promote. No strain, crank 'em out, but there is a situation brewing where many nominators aren't reviewing, and expecting reviews back (not you, but in general) and therefore our process is on the go-slow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the assurance. I will keeping cranking 'em out. Your comment about reviewing may not have been directed at me, but I will try to review more often nonetheless (though I am much more comfortable playing the role of content contributor than reviewer). Getting anxious for 2011 to arrive...! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
No, my comment wasn't personal, more a general comment. It's relatively easy for me to criticise the lack of reviewers because I try to review every single list and have done so for some time. But right now, we're running low on reviewers in general and any extra help we can get would be gratefully accepted, including from those folks who nominate lists and hope for reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Would a request for assistance in an issue of The Signpost or another form of announcement help to attract reviewers? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite possibly. Well worth considering. The thing is that even Jimbo Wales has a downer on lists. It's difficult to convince folks that this part of the project is a worthy exercise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, compared to WP:FSC (oldest nomination 14 months!) and WP:FPOC (nearly dead), WP:FLC is quite an active location. And as for Jimbo's quote, substitute the word "article" for "list" and you describe, well, most of Wikipedia. Don't be too depressed, TRM! BencherliteTalk 21:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Far be it for me to accept the dark blue perspective, but you're right B'Lite. Time of year, time of life, time of Wikipedia... who knows. We seem way down on interest, and perhaps that's a pan-wiki-demic. I'm cheery Bench, but somehow fear a little for our collective future. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
<further off-topic>Things seem to have changed since the Hallowe'en TFA plagarism kerfuffle. I sense a reluctance to review at FAC, possibly FLC too, on the basis that as the reviewers of the FA in question were getting comments about not having spotted the copyvio, why review and open yourself up to criticism later? I've had to do some work, unusually for me(!), these last weeks so haven't been working on any FLCs or reviewing, alas - I'm just trying to get my FPoC and FSC nominations over the finishing line before Christmas if possible and then I can start again in January - bring on the Boat Race (and hard luck for the Varsity Rugby match!) BencherliteTalk 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Is anyone here aware of the long discussions at WT:Notability about lists?

The guideline at the moment says "They [the notability standards] do not govern article content or whether to include an item in a list article"—which sounds to me a lot like "All lists must permit the inclusion of non-notable entries." This issue is being discussed here.

Additionally, there are several other threads on that page that may interest people involved in lists. These are related to WP:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists, which was primarily aimed at dealing with disruption caused by Gavin.collins about notability of lists (who was banned for that disruption, rendering the RFC nearly pointless).

Comments from people who know more about lists than the editors currently trying to fix the guideline (e.g., any of you compared to me) would be particularly helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

List request

I don't know where to request that you list guys make an awesome list. At Bobby Orr, which I am reviewing for WP:GA, I was wondering if there is a list of MVP triple crown winners (regular season, post season and all-star game) for major sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I'm not exactly sure what it is you want us to do. And the lack of responses suggests to me that I'm not alone in my confusion. Could you clarify? Goodraise 08:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems that Orr was MVP for the NHL in 1972 for the regular season, the playoffs, and the all-star game. I'm not a sports buff but I would imagine that this happens... very very seldom - which would make it a very short list. (has this ever happened for anyone else?) Jujutacular talk 08:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Musician Awards list

I was thinking what do you guys suggest for the LEDE of such an article for an artist with 25+ career like Madonna. Is it necessary to list all the awards received, or just the major awards associated with her music releases? What say all? — Legolas (talk2me) 07:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about the lead of that article only, right? No, you don't have to mention every list item in the lead. The point is to summarize the list, so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject is provided the main points without having to look at the list itself. Goodraise 08:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Goodraise. I have developed a kinda similar lede at User:Bluesatellite/Sandbox. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What if?

What if the nominator is indentified as a socket puppet, can I "steal" the list and be the nominator? Or will this FLC be withdrawn?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You can nominate but you would need to notify the primary contributors to the list before doing so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured List at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HIV-positive people. Colin°Talk 10:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I don't see that being featured should be a consideration in the AFD process, but it may be useful to get the opinions of some of the FL community. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree and voting "keep" just because it is an FL, or assuming that FLs must be demoted prior to deletion, would be wrong. Colin°Talk 12:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not the first time this has happened, so thankfully this isn't a precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Call for basic reforms at featured sound candidates

Dear colleagues, User:Sven Manguard has proposed two reforms, concerning the minimum number of votes required (3 -> 4, still must be two-thirds majority support), and avoiding the appearance or actual conflict of interest. Your contributions would be welcome.

I do urge FLC people who have sound-file or musical experience to consider watchlisting the candidate page and participating as reviewers. It is important that we revamp this aspect of featured content, IMO. LINK Tony (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

List or article? (Part 487)

Hey. I am currently reviewing Modern Family (season 1) at GAN, and my first thought was that season articles are typically always directed to FLC. However, there is a lot written in article format about the season, with episodic content being minimal, so one could argue that it's an article rather than a list. Namely, I'm asking whether you guys would call this an article or a list? If the former, I'll review it, and if not I'll direct this over to you guys. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A very few of these go through FAC, but this one, IMO, is a list, not an article. Courcelles 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured list to be on Main Page

Please see Talk:Main Page#Featured content for a day Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Providing empty Image column for consistency and future use

In this candidacy, Nihonjoe has suggested to add image columns to all National Treasure tables in List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others) in order to be consistent and in order to provide an empty slot for future use. I am reluctant to do this since it would create several tables with empty columns. What do you think about this idea? bamse (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't add empty columns. Perhaps when these lists get to WP:FTC it should be discussed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Not sure I understand your argument with FTC. As far as I understood Nihonjoe, he wants consistency among the tables within List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others) while FTC seems more concerned about consistency among different Lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well we should aim to keep internal consistency but if that's a whole blank column, it's pretty pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I can see some point in creating an empty column if there's a decent chance that something will be added there in the the not-too-distant future, since it avoids having to re-do the table structure. However, I wouldn't recommend it just for the sake of consistency – Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous epithet probably applies. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote in the article's candidacy, addition of pictures is a slow progress and I don't expect to have pictures for all tables in the near future. On the other hand adding a table column later is not much work. bamse (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I stand by my (sort of) original comment - a blank column is not useful. Once you get any image then, by all means, add a column and add the image and en-dash the empty cells. But please, that's just my opinion as a reviewer. We have no guidelines here, so it's a community thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

List of First Ladies of the United States

I should probably be posting this to WT:FL but more eyes have this page watched, so...

Early last year List of First Ladies of the United States by longevity was nominated at AFD. The outcome was to delete and add info to the "main list". It was never made clear whether that meant List of First Ladies of the United States or not, but nothing happened until this week (10 months later) when a user copy-pasted the page into the FL. I removed and opened talks on the talk page as it was all unsourced and had already been judged to be unencyclopedic, indiscriminate and not notable. It was re-added today and I've again removed it. There is discussion on the talk page of where to go from here. If anyone has an opinion, it would be welcomed. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Have "opined" there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Help: How much article is too much article?

I have a topic that has a pretty decent-sized table of 26 items, but also has a few short sections of text. I think that it belongs with FLs, not with FAs, based on the preponderance of content. Like to have it here because of the expertise in formatting tables and the like, and thinking that FA people will say it is too much list for them. But I'm worried that you all will think it is "too much of an article".

1. Would it help if I changed the title from List of State Reptiles to U.S. state reptiles. Keeping the "list designation" but taking "List of" out of the topic? As it really is a bit of a hybrid between an article and a list? (Kind of as a bit of a positioning thing for the reader)?

2. I see a lot of FLs here that have some text at the begginging. Some intro explaining the concept and discussing the list's contents. Basically had the impression it was a requirement. But does it bug y'all if that "text at top" is more than a lead section? If it has section headers and some images (article-y stuff)?

P.s. We will fix the bare urls and proofread the text and all (is not ready for submission yet, but want to head it at ya eventually).

TCO (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • It is a list, and I think it should be kept at its current title. Reywas92Talk 21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's a list! I just know the "article people" don't want too much list in their articles. Do you all mind this much article in your lists?TCO (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you're welcome here. You're amongst friends! We appreciate that lists can be more than just lists, we have a number of featured lists with more decent prose than some featured articles (although, don't quote me on that, of course!). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
COOL! Well we will roll. Need to do some prose polishing, image work, table formatting, etc. There's a lot of stuff, when you really dig into it and take ownership. Obviously, if we can skinny down verbiage, just to be less loquacious we will. But paring this back to 25% the size would mean dropping a lot of the conceptual discussion. And since there is no corresponding article on the concept, want to use the list for this (always get "huh" factors from non-Americans when mentioning the state reptiles, in the context of species articles). And we've still done lots of work (and will do more) on the pure list parts (sourcing, image properties, precision, etc.) And if my colleagues think some of the article stuff is too much, I'm easy and will cut. Just wanted to know if there was a written or unwritten rule.TCO (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
You're all good to nominate the list. However, if you want proper feedback, go to peer review first. However, you'll find the folks here at FLC quite generous with their time, so don't be afraid. If you nominate something that's way out of line, we'll let you know!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, man. We will fix the stuff we still know needs to be done and then probably get it into the queue. Hope submission helps you—I know "you" will help the article! We've had help from a bunch of the list "heavies" and are still getting some. I just kind of went direct to get it versus using the PR program. ;) TCO (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! Our only slight holdup now is with the images, I feel the content is adequate. Once we get all license issues (and alt text) sorted out, I think we may be ready to submit (maybe PR first, I'm not sure).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What to do when nominator gets banned?

Concerning the FLC, of List of people on stamps of Azerbaijan. The nominator of the FLC, User:Twilight Chill has been topic banned from Azerbaijan related articles and will therefore not be able to respond to comments. Twilight Chill is also the author (User:Brandmeister is the same as Twilight Chill) of the list. Should the FLC be postponed, cancelled or just continue as it does? bamse (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone is prepared to continue making changes then it continues. If we don't hear anything in the next week or so (and I've just added a heap of comments there) then we'll withdraw the nomination. It's not up to FLC to decide who can and who cannot edit Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. bamse (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I will blue-pencil this list in the next days. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

List of heads of state of the Soviet Union

Would any of you care to review the List of heads of state of the Soviet Union list for me? It may fail due to lack of reviewer interest, can somebody just review the list. If so thanks, it's appreciated. --TIAYN (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of nominations allowed at once

Hey I just want to clarify something; as I understand it, each user is only allowed to have one FLC open at once. If someone has a co-nominator for their lists, how many are they allowed to maintain at once provided the co-nominator(s) is (or are) active and helps out with the FLC? Nomader (Talk) 05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the instructions,

A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

A nominator and co-nominator are considered the same in this respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Nomader (Talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album

This nomination was a bit complicated, but I believe all concerns have been addressed and I tally five "support" votes. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured list on Main page

Just to let every one here know, talk is going on about changes to the main page again, mostly about adding a Featured Sound section. I suggested while they are at it consider finally adding Featured Lists too. There is a discussion going on Here and i think some regular FL contributors input would be greatly appreciated. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If featured lists were to be featured on the main page, I'm pretty sure we could just list the lead in a small section instead of showing the actual list. Shouldn't be too difficult, I'd think. Nomader (Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is only about Featured sounds. So if we want a section for FLs, we would have start a separate proposal.—Chris!c/t 06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that-- I'm pretty sure the idea of bringing FLs to the main page before has been met with some contention in the past. We'd have to create a viable way for FLs to be brought up there, and even then I'm not sure if it would garner a lot of support. Nomader (Talk) 06:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I have started a proposal at Talk:Main page, it would be nice to get the opinions of some of our regular contributors over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue. I'll be adding my tuppence. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look as well. There are some great FLs that deserve some attention. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposal #1

I think the best thing to do is to do the brainstorming here, as a list-oriented community, and once we have a well-defined proposal, take it to the main page talk. —WFC— 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal capped; I'm 100% behind the one below
I have deliberately avoided stating how we would select a given week's specific main list, beyond designating topics. That process would inevitably be complicated, but more importantly has the potential to derail this entire process if focussed on too early. Therefore, I believe that we should not go into points systems or whatnot until we have consensus on the general system.

Vision: a small, TFA style lead paragraph + picture for one list per week, followed by 2-3 DYK style entries without pictures. All 3-4 lists in a given day should be on different topic. Over a period of time we should make sure that we carefully balance the need to give fair representation to less-covered topics, with the fact that a high proportion of our lists fall into a relatively narrow range of subjects.

First stab at the mechanics: 80% of the work will be choosing the lead list. There are 10 main topics at WP:FL: Arts, Engineering and technology, Everyday life, Geography and places, History, Language and linguistics, Mathematics, Natural sciences, Philosophy and Religion, and Social Sciences and Society. For the purposes of the lead list, I propose that we work in a 13-week (3 month) cycle. Mathematics should merge with Natural Sciences based on size, giving us 9 main topics, while Arts and Everyday Life should each have two slots in a cycle. The 12th week would be exclusively for underrepresented sup-topics of the 7 main topics that have one slot. Note that underepresented sub-topics would therefore have two opportunities in a cycle; their topic's week, and the 12th week. The 13th week is deliberately left ambiguous at launch, so that we have room for manouevre when the process is in its infancy. It's there if we need it, if not we go to a 12-week cycle.

So: the main lists over thirteen weeks would go something like:

1. Arts 2. Engineering and technology 3. Geography and places 4. Everyday life 5. History 6. Language and linguistics 7. Arts 8. Maths/natural sciences 9. Philosophy and religion 10. Everyday life 11. Social sciences and society 12. Underrepresented sub-topics 13. ???

For the DYK style part, previous DYKs and previous "headline" lists would be excluded (as we have 2,000 lists and growing, and 150-200 spaces a year). A delegate would pick 2-3 DYKs from different topics to one another and the main list. Being a sub-list should preclude the list from becoming a "headliner" for a long time (but not indefinitely), so for this reason the original FL nominators should be informed at an early stage, giving them the opportunity to decline selection if they want (rare, but conceivable) and hopefully en-list their help. Once the picks are finalised, a small task force of FL regulars would make any necessary fixes and suggest blurbs, with the final say resting with the delegate. All of this could be done as far in advance as we liked; we could easily build up a pool of these entries. I would tentatively suggest that everyday life is usually included, to help alleviate the bottleneck that articles there are inevitably going to face.

It's not perfect, but initial thoughts? —WFC— 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I just want to clarify a few points and give some suggestions:
  • Would previous DYK lists be excluded form being the featured headline list?
  • Would the 2-3 other lists be listed in the format of a DYK (i.e. "... did you know that the New Jersey Devils have won three Stanley cups?) or would we go with some other unique format? I'd love to be able to differentiate ourselves from DYK in some way, but I understand if it'd be easier to go with DYK style blurbs for our articles.
  • I think if a list is listed in this "DYK-style blurb", it should be eliminated from consideration as a headline article. Judging by the fact that it will no longer be given priority, unless there's a large exception, they shouldn't be brought back as there will be so many other lists behind them.
I just have to admit, the idea of "Featured List Wednesdays" is really awesome. Putting that out there. Nomader (Talk) 07:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Only excluded from being a smaller one. It's rare that a list makes it as a DYK, and we would then be consistent with articles. A featured article couldn't be a DYK twice, but could be a DYK and later a TFA.
  • By "DYK-style blurb", I'm thinking more in terms of length and the overall aim; being a short, sharp, catchy introduction. I definitely don't think we should introduce a list with "Did you know... that"
  • Perhaps if we have some sort of "opt-out" system, that would work. I.e. if someone feels that a certain list has a prose section worthy of top billing one day (be they the original editor or a director/delegate/insert title here planning ahead for difficult to fill topics), the list won't end up there. That's the least dramatic way I can think of doing it. As an example, of the three FLs I've gotten promoted so far (plus the one that I'm one creation spree away from nominating), I would only choose to opt List of Watford F.C. seasons out.
And yes, FL Wednesday sounds awesome. —WFC— 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree, the tentative suggestions at Talk:Main page for FL Wednesday are the ones I'd advocate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposal #2 (a.k.a. "walk before run")

My view right now is relatively simple.

  1. We use the proposed featured sound proposal, but on Wednesday rather than Sat/Sun.
  2. We write a blurb in exactly the same way featured articles on the main page have.
  3. We (initially) select the list to be featured a few weeks in advance to allow for polishing etc, and the selection (initially) is by the directors. This may evolve into the current TFA model of suggestions, but as I said in the title, walk before run.
  4. We absolutely guarantee the community that lists we select will be verifiable, MOS-compliant (including ACCESS etc) etc etc and keep standards absolutely tip-top.

I think we have a great bunch of ideas in the section above, but I'm just focused on getting featured lists on the mainpage and if that means keeping it totally simple for the time being, so be it. We also get the coding of the front page effectively free as User:Adam Cuerden will be coding up the featured sound mods, and if we keep in-line with that, he'll code it with expansion to include FLs in mind too. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I think this is what we should do now, walk before run. It is not even a sure thing that FLs will be on the main page.—Chris!c/t 20:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On reflection, as a starting point I think you're right. Keep it simple: one a week until we're up and running. Medium term, I think we could move to a rotation system, where each list is on for 6 hours. Directors aren't going to pick a list that's sub-standard to start with, so as long as we are confident that we have the ability to meet WP:V, four per week should be manageable. —WFC— 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this seems like a great direction to move first. Put your toes in the water before you jump in, I guess. I think it's important that the lists we feature though definitely get held to a high standard, we really need to check for WP:ACCESS concerns and the like. Nomader (Talk) 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As Adam says, we need to be pro-active about this if we want to strike while the iron is hot. I've done a rough draft of one of my lists here. I think we need at least half a dozen samples, that are diverse in terms of field and (while accepting that there may be an inevitable degree of systemic bias towards English-speaking countries) geographic interest. I've done a sports list because that's what I know, but we need to give assurances that FL Wednesdays will not be dominated by sports, music and videogame minutiae (and for that reason it might be a good idea not to use mine). Perhaps if TRM were to select half a dozen decent lists that fit that criteria, and see if the original FL nominators would be willing to draft sample blurbs of ~1000 characters. If they aren't, we can always divide the work between ourselves. —WFC— 08:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, there's a vote of confidence in Bodley's Librarian (and from a Cambridge man too!) It is already in main page blurb style at Portal:University of Oxford/Selected article/10. Depending on how much space we've got, it might have to be trimmed a bit, but it's the size of an average TFA blurb (1,215 characters; WP:TFAR suggests 1,200, and today's TFA is 1,377). BencherliteTalk 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've done the notifications (didn't realise you'd already replied Bencherlite!). I think ~1000 characters would be roughly the target. Judging by the current main page, my guess is that we would get about as much space vertically as TFA, but possibly less horizontally, and TFA uses 1200 characters. —WFC— 10:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. Got it down to 1,000 characters exactly (excluding "more..."!) at User:Bencherlite/TFA blurbs. BencherliteTalk 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notifications WFC. I think we should give it 48 hours for people to respond and if not, then either write the blurbs ourselves or select different starting lists. Once that's done, and once the featured sound proposal looks stable (in terms of support) then we'll move onto Talk:Main page with our own proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in total support of using the lists as we've described in this section. I think in the future though after the initial batch, we should adopt portions of WFC's proposal above, such as a rotating system through each type of list each week. But these are just minor semantics; the most important thing is that the FL proposal work, and it seems like this does more than the trick. Good work everyone, and I'm fully behind this. Nomader (Talk) 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
This all looks promising so far. I'll delve into this further today. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
To give you somewhere to try things out I've created a page at User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo where you can get an idea of how things might look. That page transcludes the page User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Content where you can place pictures, text, etc. using ordinary wiki-markup. I've copied the blurb for Bodley's Librarian there as a trial. Please don't assume that the sizes I've used are precise representations of how the layout will turn out when Adam actually does the coding. I expect he will follow the current mainpage coding by using nested tables to get the desired effect (which I haven't – so my quick and dirty mock-up won't behave the same way when text overflows, for example). I'd encourage you to replace the contents of User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Content with other candidate lists to try out how they might look. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: If others are going to look at it, I might as well mimic the MainPage as closely as I can. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(←)This is a very exciting proposal; well done to everybody who has got this moving so quickly! I appreciate the suggestion of using List of demolished places of worship in Brighton and Hove as one of the early lists; I shall write a blurb in the next 24 hours (probably in one of my many sandboxes) and supply a link. I'll also transclude it into RexxS's Demo page. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Follow-up: I've put a sample blurb (~1,100 chars) straight into User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Content. It's not great; fresh eyes needed! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes! Ditto. This is so necessary and such a good proposal. If anyone wants a workup on a sports list (since there aren't any in the samples list), I'll volunteer. — KV5 • Talk • 00:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Having a couple of high-quality sports blurbs up our sleeves is the right way to go (possibly music as well). It certainly wouldn't be time wasted, as at some point in the future the lists would probably be in contention for the main page. But I don't think we should use them in the initial sample, unless we encounter opposition on the grounds that "while the examples are good, our endless sporting and music minutiae wouldn't reach anything like this standard". My view is that half of the battle will be convincing the uninitiated that while sport is well represented, FLC is far more diverse than that. —WFC— 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with that– and not to block all of my featured list contributions for the foreseeable future, but I think we should make sure not to put up video game lists at least for a good amount of time until the general format for lists is approved. They tend not to go down too well on the main page... Nomader (Talk) 03:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be somewhat inclined not to show the ones everyone knows you have, simply to surprise people with how varied and broad you actually are. Or, if you do include them, put them second-to-last. (I think people tend to scrutinise the last item on the list a bit more, like the teachers who only read the first and last page of an essay. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
(just my 2 cents) As the main writer of one of the above mentioned lists, I would personally love to see it on the main page. Most FLs that I come across now a-days are worthy of a main page appearance and I would support a motion to add them in.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear: I meant that the selected set of examples may as well leave out lists of types that FLs are accused of being nothing but. Obviously, I'm not saying well-written lists should be excluded from the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Where are we supposed to do blurbs if we are going to work them up for specific articles? — KV5 • Talk • 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • At the moment it seems to be individual user's subpages. I guess there will eventually be a dedicated area, but I don't think one should be set up yet, for the same reasons as my previous comment. If we set up a new area as a free-for-all at this stage, and most of the submissions are popular culture, it would be used as a stick to beat this proposal with. —WFC— 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • OK. I'd appreciate comments if anyone has them: User:Killervogel5/MainPageFLPrep is my working space right now. — KV5 • Talk • 02:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I think your picture might be set to too small a size. It looks different when it's on a page next to a FP. User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo2 - what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The blurb and image themselves look great. —WFC— 03:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks. I increased the picture to 175px. It's actually a surprisingly HQ image of a baseball award, which we are hard-pressed to find, so it didn't suffer from the increase. — KV5 • Talk • 13:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • RexxS: Perhaps text wrapping would make the original image size seem somewhat more appropriate? —WFC— 03:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree it probably would, but currently the Main Page template uses two cells of a layout table to hold the image and the text separately for the Featured Picture block, so text wrapping can't happen. View the Main Page in a narrow browser window and you'll see what I mean. I've merely copied the same technique to display what is my best guess at the likely layout. We probably need to decide whether we would like to have text wrapping for our 45% of the block before Adam starts coding, but beware of the effect in a narrow browser window if we decide to wrap the text and the FP folk decide to leave their part unwrapped. I've knocked up what you suggest, so have a look at how User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo3 behaves as you make your browser window narrower. I suspect that those using 1280px wide screens may not like the effect. --RexxS (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Ahh, I'm with you now. Wasn't noticeable until you said because of the size of the current FP. Hopefully Adam will be able to shed some light. Potential technical necessity aside, I'd rather we weren't competing with FP on image size though. —WFC— 04:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Brief note

Compared with Featured sounds, video, and pictures, with all the interesting formatting, Lists are easy. I just make it so you can turn off the formatting for the other stuff, then sit back and let you type in whatever you want. ;) For example, the code for setting up a list might look something like:

|type=List
|description='''Featured list for Main Page''' is a list that... we have to describe in its entirety, including all formatting.

I suspect that's all you really need, to be honest; I mean, the box around it is going to be the same for all featured content types, so I just need to give you control over what goes in the box. That said, if you want me to include, say, an easy way to add a picture, please let me know.

By the way, optional proposal, but I was thinking that for the first week or so after it goes on the main page, we might want to up the number of sounds and lists, to celebrate, say 4 lists alternating with 4 sounds, before returning to the normal schedule. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than we would never, ever start a list intro with "... is a list ...", of course!!! A picture would be important. Most, if not all FLs have at least a lead image. And the "celebration" week sounds good too... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Would the same format as FA pictures suit (only right aligned, perhaps)? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it should work out fine. We'll probably have to see how it will look, but it should pretty much be the same format. My main question though is that for most featured articles, there is a bold title in the lead which the main page links to (i.e. Astronomy is the study...). Obviously, WP:FL rejects this idea of using "This is a list of all of the Maryland birds", as has been confirmed through multiple FLCs. So how do we get users from looking at the list to the article? Do we put a title above it somehow and then put the lead below? Nomader (Talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
That's for you to decide. I'll provide coding support, if needed. See, the hard part of the coding is all the stuff that has to be done anyway for the FS/FP proposal, so it'd be very hard for you to make any feature requests that wouldn't be trivial to code in comparison. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand. All we really need is something similar to what FA already has for use on Wednesdays; we can figure out the title problem when we come to it with some sort of Wikicode workaround. Thanks for the help with the coding, Adam. Nomader (Talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Could do the linking like the FPs do, just pick a good set of words early on and link it. Most lists have some kind of decent phrase in the first couple sentences. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And there's always the fallback of "(more ...)" at the end of the piece as well. Bodley's Librarian blurb uses that in addition to a link in the first sentence. Folks will have to decide if they are happy with that stylistically, of course. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are we?

Hello everyone. Sorry I've been a bit out of the loop for the last day or so, but trying to catch up and ensure our approach is coherent and easy to follow by those outside the project. To that end, I've created a sandbox in my own user space (User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates) where I think it would be best to add all possible candidates for blurbs that we can take to Talk:Main page. The six examples I gave above (along with WFC's) if possible should be transcluded/added to that sandbox, along, of course, with anyone else who wishes to put forward a candidate for us to show the rest of the community that we're not "just a bunch of stats".

Speaking with Adam Cuerden, it would seem most likely that we'll be looking to make the main proposal at the main page midway through next week, by which time I hope we'll have three directors in place, and at least half a dozen (more would be better!) examples of what we're capable of doing. So, if everyone can pull together and get these examples up and running by 22 February, then I think we stand a very, very good chance of a positive outcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually go with KV's over mine, purely on the grounds that if we're going to use a sports list, we should go for the one with the broadest appeal. —WFC— 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've even got carried away and done my own blurb there. Any comments gratefully received! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it okay for us mere mortals to edit there? If so, I'll get cracking on porting some of the more leads that lend themselves to blurbs more easily, and we can copy-edit them collectively. —WFC— 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes yes, my sandbox is an open house, bring a blurb, hors-d'oeuvres provided... As for one sports over another, let's just blurb-up on the sandbox and decide from there on. I see no harm in being overqualified for main page...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to encourage everyone to comment on the current write-ups at TRM's FL candidate page. The more we critique and comment, the better type of proposal we can put forward to the community. And at TRM's slight encouragement, I've put up a video game list as one of the candidates. I mean, what would a mainpage be like without video games? Great work on the blurbs so far, everyone. Nomader (Talk) 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Any more for any more...

I'm in the mindset to invite a few more blurbs. Also, I'd like to encourage any comments on what else could go wrong when we nominate this proposal at Talk:Main page. On my talk page for this, WFCforLife has left a few ideas. Anything else would be great, and any comments in response to the stuff there too.

As for including a few more lists, I'd like to suggest these get added to our list of diversity at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates‎...

If we can add these to the ones already on the talkpage, and get decent blurbs in place, we have around four months of main page FLs already. If I'm going too far, let me know, but I think it's best to show our intent, and show we mean what we say. Let me know... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also had some suggestions:

—Chris!c/t 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Love pretty much all of the above examples. I think List of invasive species in the Everglades is of particular note, being a dynamic list. —WFC— 10:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Any chance you could ping these nominators WFC? Once again I'm being stretched a little at work... If not, no worries and I'll try to get round to it later. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Happy to draw up a blurb for the Westminster list. This is a great idea that I had no idea was progressing, and I'm very honoured that one of my articles has been highlighted so early in the process. Miyagawa (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I'm the author of Shooting thaler, listed above, and I fully support this idea. Those who write FLs are tasked with as much work and scrutiny as any FA writer. Unfortunately, though, I would like to remove Shooting thaler from the list of possible main page candidates. I'm very proud of the list, but the images still need to receive the ok from the OTRS team. For this reason, I would hate to see the images in the list distract critics and fans alike from the wonderful idea of featuring an FL on the main page. Let me know if there's anything else I might be able to do to help get this project off the ground, though. Good luck!-RHM22 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I created an Userbox for those who support the proposal. Just add {{User:RHM22/FLbox}} to your userpage.-RHM22 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello all. I am the author of the List of Denver RTD light rail stations and agree that this is a fantastic idea! FLs have to meet strict criteria and are more than appropriate on the main page. Plus, I personally think they are overdue for inclusion as visitors can more quickly digest a FL than a FA in getting a complete impression of the topic at hand. I am more than happy to give it a shot and draw up a blurb for the Denver RTD list. Patriarca12 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I was the main author and co-nominator of List of longest streams of Oregon, a collaborative effort involving several other editors. I'd be happy to prepare a blurb for potential main-page consideration by Raul654 and I'll do that later today. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't like some of the changes being made to List of longest streams of Oregon, nor do I understand them. Would it not be better to discuss them on the article's talk page? The revised layout does not look good, and at least one of the new titles is redundant. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Not sure where to put this, but the proposal is popping all over my watchlist, so I'll put it here in a new section at the bottom. I don't support the inclusion of more marginal content on the mainpage (Featured sounds) and don't feel that the Featured Sounds process is up to snuff yet, while Featured pictures used to promote original research (don't know if that is still occurring), but since they are no worse than DYK, which routinely puts plagiarism on the main page, I haven't opposed that proposal. As long as they're stuck on the bottom of the mainpage, they're doing no more harm than DYK, which at least promotes the creation of new articles, albeit often plagiarized. WRT Featured Lists, they are generally higher quality than Sounds or Pictures, and the process has matured, but I suspect you all will have better luck with this proposal if you instead frame it as Featured Lists you will put forward to Raul654 (who has not been pinged in to this discussion, which I will do next) for his choice on the mainpage, similar to WP:TFA/R, rather than proposing selection by another group of editors. I will oppose inclusion of Featured Lists if they circumvent entirely Raul's competent management of the mainpage. I do have a general concern that, in the environment of declining editorship, we're seeing more and more resources drained from Featured Articles, but that's not the fault of Lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I may be mistaken, but I believe our grouping of lists isn't our picking what we want on the main page, but instead precisely what you're describing. We're just trying to pick out the best and brightest examples to be judged on via a TFA-style process. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, in that case, I'm glad to hear it! If the proposal gains traction, I don't see any reason we couldn't adapt the already-existing page at WP:TFA/R for inclusion of Lists once a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • And while my initial suggestion was that the FL directors would select lists for the first few weeks (i.e. the first four or so), we'd move to the TFA/R model eventually. What we don't want to do is over-complicate our initial chance at adding more featured and varied featured material to the main page by overcomplicating our newly-nurtured ideas. I seem to recall that even Raul654 selects several main page FAs as only five at a time are allowed at TFA/R? The directors would be doing nothing other than hand picking a few to start with, then once the concept has matured, we'll move onwards and upwards. I certainly didn't want to exclude Raul, although why he needs to be directly included, I'm not sure, I think the idea of the FL community helping to select their most accomplished works for the mainpage will work fine. And I really didn't even imagine the idea of draining resources from FA, that's certainly not on our agenda one iota. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • As I mentioned above, I haven't concerned myself with either Featured pictures or Featured sounds being on the mainpage, as they are occuyping space at the bottom of the page and are no worse than DYK. Whether you would want to be part of Raul's mainpage scheduling would then be related to whether you are proposing creating 1) yet another new section of the main page, 2) sharing space at the bottom with Picture and Sounds, or 3) asking for a semi-regular slot in the FA space. My suggestion is that, if you want a weekly slot with FA, then you would want to bring Raul into the discussion, and that would be joined with the WP:TFA/R process. I would oppose FLs taking space from FA unless Raul is scheduling it, since his oversight has been exceptional there, there has never been a mistake, and it's a smoothly functioning process. It's a question of design-- where you are proposing to get your space, or with whom you will be sharing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Ah, okay, well that's easy, we never proposed to take over an FA spot. Not for a moment. We always said we'd share the second FP space on Wednesdays only. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
            • PS, one only has to look at the list of FL directors, past and present, to know that FL has already drained resources from FA. I'm not complaining-- just saying; we can't oblige people to work outside of their area of interest. If you're proposing to share the FP space, no need to involve the TFA slot or Raul then, but have you made the Pictures and Sounds people aware ? I would support that proposal; FLs are high quality, so if Pictures and Sounds are getting mainpage space, so should FLs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I think there's a distinction between one area "draining resources" and another area losing resources for one reason or another. Until now, there's been little or no perceived benefit to being a FL community member, although we've fought hard for a year or so to be recognised as definitely part of Wikipedia's finest work, albeit slightly more niche than the FAs. The FS brigade (Adam Cuerden and Sven Manguard) are well aware of this proposal, but yes, I haven't informed the FP guys. I kind of figured that since they're getting potentially 12 FPs a week on the mainpage and we're asking for that to be 11 with 1 FL per week, it wasn't unreasonable, but I have overlooked that, so I'll remedy it as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Altering the mainpage involves a whole lotta design issues, so yes, you want to make sure everyone is on board early on. It's harder than it looks-- I watched all the tweaking when Raul ran all four on the anniversary, and was surprised at the amount of work involved! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Already covered in the FL proposal, User:Adam Cuerden has agreed to incorporate the same re-coding issues for FLs as he's doing for FSs, so we've got that sorted too. I notified the FP folks, I didn't see any sign that the FS guys had done that though!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                    • In the FS proposal, it is said that the FS folks had the support of User:Howcheng. If I am not mistaken, he is the "director" of FP.—Chris!c/t 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                      • That may be correct. I went to WP:FPC to look for a "director" but found nothing obvious. So I left a note at WT:FP and WT:FPC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
                        • FPC doesn't have a 'director' per se, but Howcheng runs POTD (the two processes are fairly independent). Jujutacular talk 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New director?

User:Giants2008 has community consensus to expand his role at FLC to director. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

Hello FLC folks. As many of you are aware, User:Giants2008 has done a sterling job in stepping in as an FLC delegate when both Dabomb87 and me are too busy to give FLC the attention it deserves. I'm here to propose that we ask Giants to take the role on formally, so that we have three directors. There are a couple of reasons for this, firstly it seems me and DB87 have less available time to dedicate to the process, and secondly (if we're really lucky) we may start to get lists featured on the main page. These things combined could use another pair of hands, and Giants is the ideal candidate. I've already asked him if he'd be amenable to the idea, and he said he was, contingent on the community supporting this decision. So, community, please forthwith show your support (or otherwise) in favour of Giants2008 becoming a third Featured List director. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(post-note note: I'll close this down in 72 hours or so, there's no major drama here, I [and Giants] want to do this transparently... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

  1. "Per nominator"! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support Giants is ideal. Methinks workload will increase too if the main page issue works out. Jujutacular talk 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Support I thought he was already a director, lol.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Support per the excellent reasons about to be given by the next person offering support. BencherliteTalk 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  5. Support best man for the job. If the current directors feel they need more hands for the work, they should of course be granted that. Arsenikk (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  6. Support ditto. Courcelles 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  7. Support no reason to oppose—Chris!c/t 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  8. Support Fine with me. The only issue this could bring is he might be less prone to vote so he can ultimately close the FLCs. Heh. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    I agree that on the face of it, that could be an issue, but I've closed a few FLCs that I've voted in, without too many complaints (!) so hopefully the same grace would be applied to Giants. As long as there's no clear COI, no problem in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    Directorship wouldn't have to mean a reduction in his level of commenting (short of a vote), and any decrease in his voting will I hope be matched by increased voting by TRM and Dabomb (if they wish) since there will now be two people available to close the discussion not one. BencherliteTalk 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  9. Support Great editor, no reason to oppose. Looks like there's strong consensus in favor. Nomader (Talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  10. In my eyes, Giants has been as good as director for the past couple of years anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  11. Strongest possible support — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  12. Support. I'm usually a fan of detailed rationales, but in this case the reasons are plain for all to see. —WFC— 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  13. Support - He's more than well equipped for the job and I'd imagine there wouldn't be as much of a backlog as there is now. Afro (Talk) 08:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  14. SupportSounds great. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  15. Support – Guys don't think I'm mad or something, but last night, I was thinking how busy you guys (Rambling Man and Dabomb87) are these days. There are plenty of FLC and FLRC to do. Giants2008 is a very reliable person, and I support him becoming a delegate. – Novice7 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  16. Support, the candidate seems like a more than appropriate/accomplished editor. There is plenty of work to go around and surely it will speed up the processes? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  17. Support—fully confident he'd do an excellent job. –Grondemar 07:22, 20 February 2011 (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.

Congrats, Giants! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Post-discussion support. I really need to keep a closer eye on FLC. -- Scorpion0422 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

FL on main-page proposal now up for discussion at Talk:Main page

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.

Just to let the project know there will hopefully be active discussion here about lists on the main-page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And getting screwed over by the FA people. Not in the least bit surprising, I must say. StrPby (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with a short memory and a lack of gratitude can inform you about which two editors worked the hardest to get a directorship established for FLC years ago, and which one editor put the first FL on the mainpage. But don't let the facts get in the way of ignorant, unfactual statements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not accurate at all. — KV5 • Talk • 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the old Dispatch: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches. Maybe some folks can be arsed to read the links, refresh their memory, get a sense of perspective, and stop biting the hands that fed you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a fight here but just how as I not right? As of this comment there are three opposes: you, Raul and some guy who strongly opposed us getting on the main page unless we do it through TFA. It seems pretty clear, at least to me, that it's only the FA side which has an issue with this. That's the last I'm saying on this because I'm not here to make enemies, I just want to see FLs recognised. StrPby (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Your reading comprehension appears to be impaired: I suggest you come back after you've done some reading. No one in the FA process has opposed based on "getting on the main page unless we do it through TFA", and you certainly don't appear to have taken the time to read the links in the Dispatch above or the discussion at WT:MAIN or at User talk:Raul654, since you continue to believe the FA people don't want FLs recognized. Before you denigrate other editors, try reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
You have not EXACTLY said that, but have had a bunch of comments in that vein and a bunch of mistaken expectations that things should run through Raul, through your slot, use your processes, etc. Made comments on how much content they should put up (for a pilot, which they had talked through already). Come on. Keep your eye on the real enemy, DYK. Let these guys try something out. TCO (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, well, that is also incorrect, but don't let me get in the way. When I thought the proposal was for shared space with FA, I suggested that Raul be brought in early on. Once I realized that wasn't the proposal, I retracted.[1] Do read before furthering false notions that are feeding some inferiority complex here, or the idea that "FA people" are against FLs on the mainpage. To my knowledge, we have not seen a single post to that effect from anyone involved in FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 24 February 2011 (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.

Summary

I took the bold decision to archive this talk page. It was getting a bit long, and while there was some constructive discussion, there were other less constructive comments, and I don't think it is a good idea to spread discussions out to multiple venues. At the time of writing we have 29 FLCs, and 5 FLRCs; reviews and further nominations are very welcome. Other points of interest for those catching up include the fact that there is a proposal to include featured lists on the main page: discussion on that proposal should now be directed there. If there are any specifics outstanding at the end of the proposal, we would obviously use this talk page as a focal point, but for now there is a centralized discussion, so it would be best to keep the discussion in one place. In other news, User:Giants2008 has been elected as our third FLC director. I'm sure everyone who has not already done so will join me in congratulating him.

Regards, —WFC— 08:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Task force

I was thinking, we should use the recent interest in lists in general, and featured lists in particular, to kick-start the FLC task force back into life. Possibly (although I cannot stress in strong enough terms how tentatively I'm suggesting this) in the form of a competition, to take as many of the lists as possible back up to standards. Alternatively, there are simpler steps we could take. A weekly/fortnightly/monthly collabouration to take a list out of the "danger zone" might be do-able. Or even something as simple as an exercise in tracking down active editors who might have an interest in saving or re-promoting a particular list.

Any thoughts? —WFC— 11:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be down with that... I think maybe the collaboration option might be best, as it gives editors a clear goal to aim for and would really help us clean out some of the early lists. Nomader (Talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
A nice idea, but like the main page proposal, I'd advocate a slow-and-steady approach. Quality over quantity any day, so maybe it's a "list of the fortnight" to be restored to beautiful modern standards. Needless to say anything like this gets my backing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, in that case I suppose it wouldn't be such a bad idea to tie it in to the main page. I.e. the (provisionally fortnightly) collabouration should be a list on something that we're not seeing enough of on the main page: cleaning it up in preparation, and presumably doing the blurb as well. That would be double-bubble, as participants would have the added incentive of seeing the list that they've worked hard on in a prominent place. —WFC— 07:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Also like the idea and would be willing to help (on topics that interestme-have some knowledge of). I'd also prefer the collaboration idea. bamse (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I support the idea behind it, I don't think we should block traditionally promoted lists that have been worked on by editors as well. I think we should stick with the reward incentive, not the main page one. Nomader (Talk) 21:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, if there's one list on the main page per week we definitely shouldn't adopt that idea. The reason behind that suggestion is that it looks like we're being buttered up to do more than one. The line in the sand could end up being two or three. —WFC— 16:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Forking question

I noticed that relatively recently (Sep/Nov 2010) a set of forks over artists discographies were promoted. There are three pairs of discographies of Carey, Madonna, and Dion that were promoted as albums and singles as separate lists and I am not sure forking was mentioned for any of those. Before I rush into FLRCing them, is there a reason for their promotion as split? Nergaal (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I as I can tell, the issue of forking never came up. Maybe the community thinks that separate lists are viable at a certain point? Celine Dion and Madonna have 100 or more singles each (I promoted the latter); Mariah has 70 or so, a little less and fewer than in Kylie Minogue singles discography, where you opposed. Whether there is a certain amount of singles that prevents a singles discography from being considered a content fork, I do not know. What does everyone think? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I've always seen 100kb as the rough point at which a split on size grounds starts to look justifiable. The combined Kylie lists are about 88kb at the moment, and given that there will be a degree of redundancy if the two were merged, I don't see a special case. However (and I am sorry to raise this repeatedly, because on all other measures it's an outstanding list) with this as a precident, I'm not sure if any oppose on forking grounds can be justified nowadays. —WFC— 07:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice. — KV5 • Talk • 13:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page proposal (update)

Hello community. Hopefully (some of?) you will have been aware of a proposal to try to finally get featured lists onto the main page, having been in existence since Sri Lankan national cricket captains was promoted in June 2005. This proposal followed a successful featured sounds proposal, but wasn't quite as smooth running. Technical details were examined more closely, and as such the discussion became disjointed and drifted somewhat from the main topic. However, I'm pleased to see the community almost universal in their support for the principle of lists on the main page (see Talk:Main page) and also glad to note that a technical compromise has been developed. In short:

  • Featured pictures continue to appear exactly as they do from Tuesday to Friday inclusively.
  • Saturday and Sunday will see the FP space on the main page shared between FPs and FSs.
  • Monday will see the FP space on the main page shared between FP and "today's featured list".

While this may not seem overly ambitious, I have been determined since the very start of this process to ensure the utmost quality of anything we put onto the main page. I am formally in support of the current proposal and have added this note here to gather the opinion of the FL community, or to encourage you all to participate at the discussion on the main page talkpage. Cheers everyone, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I too am in full support of this proposal. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I just want to say that although I think that if forced to, we could do more than one list a week, I'd much rather start with small steps than try and take a big one and faceplant ourselves into the pavement. I completely support the proposal that currently seems to be the consensus, and I'm really proud of what our community's done so far. Great work everyone. Nomader (Talk) 11:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated update

Hello all. Today the proposal was closed with a clear consensus that lists will be on the main page. So hurrah for that. Now it's a case of working out the technical details. Thanks to everyone who's supported this ground-breaking endeavour. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Will there be a wp:TFL and wp:TFLR? Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
And where will the various and sundry choices be coordinated? Here? — KV5 • Talk • 01:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought we are already coordinating on User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates.—Chris!c/t 01:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, for now, but it seems like something that should be moved into Wikipedia-space rather than userspace now that the proposal has gone through. Userspace doesn't seem like the most appropriate place to make the decisions on what appears on the mainpage for the world. — KV5 • Talk • 02:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose that we have a review area, a cleanup area, and a holding area. The review area is for discussing and polishing off blurbs, ensuring that we have something interesting, of the correct length and of main page quality. The cleanup area is essentially to ensure that lists meet 2011 FL standards: access, sufficient sourcing, no link rot or DABs, etc. The holding area is for the directors to pick whatever they please, in the knowledge that anything that has made it there should be good enough.
The reason I suggest three stages is that we almost ran the mainspace proposal without doing quality checks on the lists. Now I'm sure they would've been done eventually, but the emphasis has always been on quality over quantity, and I think we should have a step that explicitly deals with quality (even if it effectively serves as a baby sister to FLRC). This may seem elabourate for a once a week slot with three months' worth lined up. But in my view, we want to build a process, and we want a large stockpile in the holding area. Not for process' sake, but because as I understand it we want to eventually being able to sustain a more regular slot. —WFC— 10:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds similar to the DYK process, which works well. WFC, do you envision this as something volunteer-based (as in we all chip in) or as something that needs a coordinator? — KV5 • Talk • 12:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer led, with a designated person (or two) as a safety net at the end. The way I see it, you don't need to know anything about FLC to be able to provide useful input on the quality of a paragraph of writing, so the blurb checking can be pretty independent. Sure, the occasional shocker will come through, but we've got plenty of opportunities to catch it yet.

By the time a list gets to quality checking, it's already in a great place. It will be a featured list, will have someone who has taken a personal interest, and will have a pre-prepared blurb and usually an image. At this stage we'd be checking the bog standard FLC things, with a particular emphasis on ACCESS and WP:V, and there is the potential to improve the blurb if necessary. Only then would a co-ordinator (conceivably TRM) be needed, to act as a consistent barometer of whether a list has been checked properly before adding it to the pool, and a guide on what should be looked at if s/he is not satisfied. Even then, we have one final safety net: once TRM picks a week's list, there will be the usual interest from people who are interested in all sections of the main page. —WFC— 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Requiring issues to be raised at list talk pages before being taken to FLRC

That's it in a nutshell. A longer explanation can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates#Add a requirement for a talk page request first. Regards, —WFC— 19:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Announcements template

Please see discussion at Template talk:Announcements/New featured content#Proposal: Redirect to WP:GO. Jujutacular talk 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Length of featured lists (3b)

Okay, so I was looking through the archives of WT:FL? and note that there has been some significant discussion in the past about criterion 3b of the Featured list criteria, specifically about length of lists. I've just created Chief of Defence Force (Singapore) with the ultimate goal of FLC, but as it's barely nine items long I was thinking it probably wouldn't meet any length requirement. Is there still any consensus that FLs need to be of a certain legnth and thus I should forget about trying to improve the new list further? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it will meet 3b, once expanded to include the Chief's role. The office has been around for 40+ years, so there is plenty of info to write about, and should easily meet 3b, IMHO. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think with a bit of expansion it will easily pass GA, and eventually FA. Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you say it wouldn't count as a list, then? I am myself unsure about which way to go with it. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I would make that call when the time comes. Add all the info you can find, and if the list is more incorporated into the article, then GAN/FAC it. If you see the list as central, then bring it here. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
3b doesn't say anything about ten items, it specifies that something must in length and or topic meet the criteria for a stand-alone list. I think we focus too much on the length aspect to the detriment of the second clause. The topic of the head of a country's military is, IMO, sufficient justification for an page to itself, that there are currently only nine members is a self-correcting problem. Courcelles 00:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Ten items is a traditional standard which was around before 3b, unofficially. Thinking back before 3b existed, if a list had fewer than 10 entries, it probably wasn't going to pass at FLC barring special circumstances (for example, if each entry had a sizable note column like in List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters, which had nine items when it passed, that would sometimes be seen as sufficient). To me, this page is more of an article than a list since the actual list is somewhat outweighed by the prose. However, this can be subjective. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

FL on Main Page - moving forward

As we may be in a bit of a hiatus while the coding is sorted out, I thought I'd see how we might deal with the process of getting the chosen Featured Lists onto the Main Page.

So I've created the following:

And I suggest the following instructions:

STEP 1
Create a page called something like Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Cont-2011-03-11, but use the target date for the TFL as the date in the page's title. Create content there and work on it until you're satisfied. Use the ones we already have as templates. I'd recommend setting the larger dimension of the image to 100px as other featured content does. If the picture is portrait, work out (100*current-width/current-height) to get the width needed to be set.
STEP 2
When you've finished, create a new page called something like Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-2011-03-11, but use the target date for the TFL as the date in the page's title. Copy the contents of the first page into it and protect it.
STEP 3
Make a local copy of the image used on en:wikipedia and protect it.

That's it. You're done. Finished.

For the moment, you can look at your efforts at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview which will display content if there is a "Prot" page matching today's date.

Other stuff
You can play with the colours at Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot and you can alter the "Archive/Recently featured stuff" at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Prot-bottom

Have a look at those and see if that's a possible process for making TFL. It should be reasonably usable, and I've done my best to make sure that the penis-pic-posters can't disrupt the process. Something like this should make the Main Page coder's job a bit easier, as it only requires a single line of code to be inserted into the Main Page. On the downside, it uses an expensive parser function, but we could use an alternative process if that became an issue. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to do this as part of the main page stuff, actually. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Adam – does that mean we can expect something similar when you've done your coding? If so, it means we could "rehearse" our processes for getting TFLs ready, so that we have an idea of the work involved. I don't expect we'll create a system as sophisticated as TFA uses, but it would still be nice to be able to do "dry runs" before we go live. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to set up a prototype by Monday. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to put it at WP:Today's Featured List if no consensus for somewhere else emerges before I start setting up. The standard seems to be either" Today's Featured X" or "X of the Day". Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
TFL would definitely be my preference. Although WP:TFL is currently a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport. —WFC— 21:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I prefer TFL, too. I think we should just take the redirect for Today's Featured List and then leave a hatnote at the top for disambiguation.—Chris!c/t 22:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating the obvious here, but Template:ArticleHistory will need to be updated to display one of the following messages (if this cannot be done already): "This list is currently on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list." or "This list appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on XXXXMonth XXDay, XXXXYear." Looking forward to the resurrection of Wikipedia:Today's featured list (not the re-direct!) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

FL Milestone

Hi folks, just wanted to share the good news that our 2000th FL was promoted on Monday 14 March. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you have to promote 6 at once, to not let one FL have the distinction of being the 2000th? ;-) Congratulations everyone: nominators, reviewers, directors. Jujutacular talk 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hooray! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Hurrah indeed. Let's now make sure they're all something we can be proud of. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rock on the Net

This has come up so many times. Can Rock on the Net be used as a reliable source? The concern was raised here, and I figured it needed to be addressed before I can nominate another Grammy list for FL status. Thanks! (Note: I try to use Rock on the Net as a last resort because of this debate, though I see FLC nominations where ROTN is deemed reliable and others where the source is considered unreliable.) Also, if consensus proves the source to be unreliable, there are MANY lists that will need to be updated! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth's cheatsheet says yes based on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chronic/archive1, but I don't really see a valid argument there. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC Weekly Top 40 is interesting in that Rock on the Net was deleted as a result. RSN thread says otherwise, but, little participation. Colour me undecided as yet, and their FAQ doesn't really help much. If we could verify the last question, it would settle it in my mind. Courcelles 17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem we have is that the reliability of many sources usually depends on the context where they are used. We often find that a source deemed reliable when supporting a piece of text in an article turns out be unreliable if used to support a different piece of text, or in another article. In general, a reliable source should meet the following criteria:
  • Independent – a disinterested commentator on the topic;
  • Reviewed – preferably each item would be peer-reviewed for accuracy, but at least some indication of an editorial process of review that can give us confidence in the contents;
  • Well-respected – a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, probably regularly cited by other independent sources.
Now (in general) Rock on the Net seems independent, and has a Google page ranking of 5 (which means it's a relatively well-used site). The thing letting it down is that I couldn't find any indication of how it aggregates its content. In other words, without some indication of the quality assurance process they use to make sure that their facts are accurate, I'd have doubts about how reliable it is. I certainly wouldn't use it to rebut the statements of an already established reliable source, but I can see how it may be tempting to cite it where no other source is available. --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured list

Hate to be a pain, but I'd appreciate if someone could edit Wikipedia:Today's_featured_list into a list-based decription, instead of a an article-based one. Backend will be coming together gradually over this week, but I can't write the descriptive text and guidelines for you.


Also, once that's done, I'll add the code for setting up lists there. IT'll be pretty standard, just a wrapper that you put the sample of the list in, with a couple bits meant to link it all together. =)Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start, but I think TRM would need to draft it really. —WFC— 02:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What I'll do is leave in bold the bits that I think he would need to address. —WFC— 02:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It has been done as far as I believe it can be without TRM's input. —WFC— 02:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record

This is the format I'd like to use for Featured list entries, as the pre-loaded template you're asked to fill out to set up a TFL.

I can add an image option, but you'd need to tell me where you want the image, and some default settings. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, Adam – thanks. We can always write a guide to help while folks get used to it.
Image option is required. I'd suggest: maximum dimension = 100px (as with other main page sections); position = top-left, with text wrapping; no caption, but alt text mandatory. There's an example at Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-2011-03-16 with its positioning shown at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview. --RexxS (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added in some parameters. They aren't used yet, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I set one of them up at Wikipedia:TFL/2010-03-16. Obviously, it needs a little more work, but it's a decent prototype. Anyone who knows basic layout and template code may want to edit Template:TFL_default.

Of course, a slightly different layout will be used on the main page (e.g. the coloured box), but what goes IN the box will be based off of the TFL default template, so please make it look pretty. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


TFL: Decision needed!

Okay, there's two ways to handle this. The first is to presume that lists will only ever be on, say, Fridays. (Was it Fridays or Mondays you settled on? Do me a favour and remind me.)

While this keeps the page layout simple, it means you're going to have to recode the page if you expand the number of days you mainpage. That may not be ideal.

The second is to allow Featured lists on any day, though throwing up a warning if a featured sound is already selected for that day (I'll make sure that code is easily removable and documented) Hence, the display would be "This Week's Featured Lists", suppressing any days which don't exist. This is more readily expandable, but it's going to be somewhat complex if you ever have to edit it.

Note this ONLY applies to WP:Today's featured list, automated linking to the previous/next TFL, and related pages. The Main Page will be coded to handle FLs on ANY day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My assumption had always been that lists and sounds would eventually mature to a point where they would be able to share seven days, so I'd probably go for the second option. —WFC— 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
At the point of hitting 7 days, tough, things simplify again. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
We start with one a week, and aim for seven a week. I understand the seven could cause code to pop, so don't worry too much. One step at a time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just my opinion, but with over 2,000 unused featured lists, I suspect we may want to increase the number of days fairly soon (the moment we get familiar with the process, at a guess). Therefore, making presumptions about weekdays is a non-starter. I think we need to allow TFL on any day to allow future expansion.
I'm a little confused by Hence, the display would be "This Week's Featured Lists", suppressing any days which don't exist. I assume you mean that the page Wikipedia:Today's featured list would display all the TFL's (just one at present) for either the current week or for today and the following seven days. The "current week" isn't very useful, so I guess you intend 'today and the six successive days'. You are then faced with the problem of determining whether a TFL is proposed for each of seven days. Do you intend that we have an index page that we update manually to show the days where there is a TFL? or do you mean you intend to make seven expensive parser calls to ascertain automatically whether a TFL page exists for each upcoming day? Either way, I'd be very happy to see such functionality, if it's feasible. I'm not sure what sort of editing you're expecting us to make on the Wikipedia:Today's featured list page? Perhaps if you could give us some idea of what you consider might need to be edited there, it would help us weigh up what options we might have. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I should clarify, as I know the code I'm planning, but you don't.
Okay, there's a command called #ifexist. It lets you check whether a page exists, and act on that information accordingly.
So, we could easily check a week ahead, and list all forthcoming FLs in that week, simply not showing any days that don't have FLs. The alternatives are:
  • Only show the list if there's one that day - kind of useless.
  • Show all days, without suppressing days where there aren't lists - confusing.
The distance we want to search forwards will likely vary by number of lists per week. However, note there's a hard limit on number of #ifexists per page - I believe between 100 and 300 - and if we exceed that, the page breaks. Still, that's more than enough to
  • Check back a week and forwards a week to link to the previous and next TFL accurately. - Alternatively, we may be able to get a bot to do this - any bot coders?
  • Automatically generate a monthly listing of FLs (if we suppress the previous feature on that page [Easy]).
Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, I used the parser function #ifexist to do the demo at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview last week (rather than PAGESIZE that TFA uses to check whether a page exists with more than 150 bytes in it); but both of those are "expensive" calls and I'm always cautious about using more than a few of them, in case somebody else is doing the same in other transcluded pages. Nevertheless if you're happy to use multiple expensive calls, the functionality would be much appreciated. The alternative would be to have a page that has links to each of the pages for the next 7 days (or 30 days?) and rely on the software to distinguish between blue-links and red-links. In fact, depending on how you test for the existence of a TFL for a given day on the main page, you may need to do something with those redlinks to prevent smart vandalism.
etc. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As long as you don't mind expensive calls, the page/template Wikipedia:Today's featured list/nextlist can be transcluded to return the name of the next existing page of the format Wikipedia:Today's featured list/MMM DD, YYYY within the next seven days (which is the format you used at Wikipedia:Today's featured list). Please feel free to modify it and/or move it somewhere more useful if you want. --RexxS (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Status?

Adam, RexxS, (and anyone else!), I've been out of the loop properly for about a week, can someone please update me with where we are with this proposal? I don't want FLC to be caught on the hop without having at least a month or two's worth of featured material ready to go at a moment's notice. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where we are with the coding, so I suggest you could make a start at picking a 'long-list' of candidates for the main page and getting blurbs for them. If we want to see how they would look, we can use the preview page I made above to try them out. At a rate of 4.3 lists per month, you only need to pick 8 or 9 to have the buffer you're looking for. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current mixed martial arts champions/archive1

Just noticed this FLC, which hasn't received any comments in well over a month - mainly because the nominator never listed it on this page! Should I list it now, and if so should I put it straight to the bottom of the list given its age? Also worth noting is that the FLC tag is on the actual article rather than the talk page....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the FLC tag to the talk page, and I would say just list the nomination at the top of the list and treat it as brand new (if that's okay with the nominator). Jujutacular talk 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Turtles of Texas

Thinking of doing an FL on this. About 30 items. We do have a List of reptiles of Texas. I really don't want to do all the reptiles since I'm not interested in snakes or lizards and since I think turtles will be a sufficient, interesting topic. I would probably leave the list they have there as is, other than giving a hatnote to my new list. And the existing list is just a bunch of names and links. I would add a table with images, references, IUCN ratings (the stuff from state reptile) plus maybe one new trick (range). I think it would be a good page and I'm not trying to do anything sneaky. Just checking what people think ahead of time...TCO (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't (personally) see an issue with expanding out a standalone list which covers these turtles in much greater detail. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I am getting a chubby for it already. It's not something I would want to do for every state, but the size of the place and number of species will make it an interesting larticle. Can talk about the interaction of climate with distribution. Species that only occurr in Texas (maybe some map turtles?) or that occurr in no other U.S. states. I also have some info on the changed attitudes and regulations regarding turtle hunting (basically went from being almost unlimited to almost unallowed). I will dig for some cute cultural stuff with festivals or sports teams (if it exists). Add in how prideful the Texans are about their big, huge state and it will be fun. Can get some looks by people from WP United States or WP Texas. The state-specific range maps are going to be some serious research and work, but I have some ideas on how to knock that out...and they will look sweet all lined up in a table column. Hopefully it builds off of my state reptile and painted turtle FAs and progresses to something new in the future.TCO (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well good luck with it. Take it easy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I also see no problems with this idea, the amount of info you're talking about could never fit into the main article. Courcelles 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

400 free Credo Reference accounts available

Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts.

Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above message was originally composed by Slimvirgin (talk · contribs) and copied from WT:FL. Dabomb87 (talk)

List-related question

I won't be nominating this in the short term—too many supplementary articles to write and pix to take—but List of places of worship in Wealden is one for the long term. With its 170-odd items and >400 refs, plus all those pics, is it too long, and should it be split? (The split being "Open" and "Closed/disused".) A tag has been placed on it, and I can see the point. Thoughts? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It should almost certainly be split, IMHO. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
While I have a similarly long featured list, considering that there exists a very natural split for your list, I'd say split. Also, I believe that you would not loose much (in the sense of coherency) by having open and closed places in separate lists. bamse (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Archive_15&oldid=1139993390"