Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 22

Sourcing and selection criteria clarifications for List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments

Hello all.

I recently overhauled List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments, and I was considering nominating it at FL. However, before I do so, I wanted to get some opinions on a couple of areas from people that are involved in the FLC process.

1) There is virtually no coverage in reliable, third party sources for the number of entrants in tournaments. Instead, I rely on smash.gg, which is the website that is used to manage virtually every Smash Bros. bracket. The information is correct, but it's not third party, because the information is added by the tournament organizers themselves. There's also little coverage of prize pools, so many entries in that column use {{unknown}}.

2) The selection criteria I used were the two two tiers, as defined by the leading ranking body. However, said body does not consider online tournaments, and due to COVID-19 there have been a few recently with $5,000+ prize pools and 1,000+ entrants, which would make them roughly equivalent to the events included in the article. However, there's no source that lists all of the major online tournaments, nor one that defines what a major online tournament would look like. As a result, I've left online tournaments off.

Are either of these issues that would prevent a nomination from being successful?

Many thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Answering solely these questions and not expanding into a larger review: I think you're good to go for both; I'd like to see a note explaining that the participant counts are self-reported by the tournaments, and I'd like to see a mention why you don't include B/C rank tournaments (though it's reasonable not to). To save you a review comment when you nominate, however: in sortable tables, you link every mention of an article, not just the "first", because that changes when you re-sort. --PresN 02:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

dispenser's tools

Dispenser's tools have been down for over a month due to domain name problems. If you need to use them they can be found at his IP address here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guerillero, that's a really useful link, I've been missing those tools! Harrias ^talk 19:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

List of descriptive plant epithets

I asked for feedback on six lists I'm working on, and got a request to combine them into one list. (The scene from The Matrix where Neo goes "Whoa!" came to mind.) I don't mind moving in that direction, and we'll see how it goes. (I had to strip the images out to avoid breaking MediaWiki. No idea if it's going to choke on the templates.) It will probably take a month, so some of what normally gets settled during a review may get decided on the article talk page before it gets to FLC. Anyway, all comments are welcome. One person was dubious that it should be a list at all; I don't agree, obviously, but if that's an issue, I need to know sooner rather than later. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The links have changed for now to User:Dank/List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z) and User:Johnboddie/List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H). I don't expect these to sail through FLC without comments, because they're a bit different ... OTOH, we've already done a lot of work, more than we planned to do, in response to FLC reviewer comments. We're always open to new ideas but ... the window is closing to get in comments along the lines of "completely restructure the tables". We're working hard on these and we expect to get the second one to FLC in a week or two. (And if there's significant disagreement that comes too late for us to start over again, then the nominations will fail, which would be a shame but not a problem.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Deadliest Catch/archive1

This is marked as withdrawn, and was last edited on 6 June, but still appears on the list; can someone take a look and see why the bot hasn't done anything with it? Harrias ^talk 11:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, the same thing is going on at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive2. Harrias ^talk 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, looking at them, I think it is because the template was added, but not signed. Could one of the @WP:FLC director and delegates: take a look? Harrias ^talk 12:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well let's see: I've signed them both, time (and bot) will tell. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man and Harrias, It's because the talk page is missing {{featured list candidates|List of awards and nominations received by Deadliest Catch/archive1}} (diff). I have added it back so the bot can archive. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: Is it the same thing at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive2? Harrias ^talk 13:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, Yes. I have added the nomination back. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot won't close nominations where the talk page doesn't have an exactly correct FLC template. Signing the tag on the FLC doesn't matter, the bot checks the article history if there's no signature. --PresN 14:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Question about the number of supports that are needed for a candidate to become a Flc

I remember recently seeing on a WP:Talkpage here somewhere that the minimum number of Supports a Flc needs to get to become a WP:FL is 3, but I've noticed that the number isn't codified on the WP:Flc page. Am I misremembering that number? If I am not, and that is the standing/accepted Flc practice then it would be helpful for that number to be listed in the instructions. Shearonink (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no number codified because there is no official number. It's usually 3-ish, but the actual rule is "when the director or delegate thinks there's consensus". We don't list a specific number because some reviews, for several contextual reasons, may be given less weight, and outstanding opposes or reviews or delegate comments may affect consensus. It's not as much of an issue right now, but we don't want nominators/topic enthusiasts to do straight vote-counting, because that's not actually what we're evaluating. --PresN 14:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I'm pretty green about FLC ways so I ask what might seem to be obvious questions to the experienced hands around here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Length of prose sections

I cannot see any guidance on the length of prose sections in list articles, but I understand that the unofficial rule is a maximum of four paragraphs. Most FLCs comply with that, but some with more extensive prose have passed FLC. Is there any rule on the balance of prose and list to pass FLC? I am asking because Yakikaki has nominated List of medieval churches on Gotland, which has a three paragraph lead and six paragraphs which I would take to normally belong in a fully prose article.

One point is whether an extensive prose section should be allowed if there is no article which can be referred to for further information. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dudley Miles and sorry for my very late reply to this, I've been on vacation and it's been a bit chaotic coming back to work with all the things with the corona and whatnot. In any case, I just wanted to say that while I don't think I'm in a position to give any input on the overarching issue here, I could probably shorten the prose section of the Gotland church list quite a bit, if you think it would improve the article? But perhaps we should have that discussion separately at the nomination page? In any case, I can see that it looks rather long and of course I'm open to suggestions in order to improve the quality of any content. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That is fine but I would like to get guidance from @WP:FLC director and delegates: . Is there a policy on the length of prose sections and if so what is it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

For me there's a grey area between what constitutes a suitable candidate for FLC versus one for GAN. I would say, in this case, the article is definitely a list. We have no "policy" on that, just an assessment on whether the list dominates or the prose dominates. Another example would be List of Birmingham City F.C. managers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man. I will take that as meaning that Yakikaki does not need to shorten the prose sections. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

+1 - There's no rule, unofficial or otherwise, on how much prose can be in a list, just a general consensus-based interpretation on if the "main part" of an article is a series of items, either in a table or otherwise. It's certainly possible to have so much prose giving "context" that the list part becomes no longer the central focus, but I don't think this list is anywhere near that. --PresN 19:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

One table format for awards FLs

Hi! Could anyone point to me where it was agreed to move to the one table format for awards lists. The issue has been brought up at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Zendaya#Formatting and Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Timothée Chalamet#Formatting. I was recently reverted twice at Timothée Chalamet's list for changing to the new format. I've only found this FLC from June so far sorta explaining the change. This is definitely something that should be added to WP:MOSFILM#Accolades, WP:MOSTV#Reception and WP:ACTOR#Project style recommendations. - Brojam (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think, ss a community, a "decision" per se was made, just that it was agreed in this instance that dozens of individual sections was unappealing and so we moved to a more integrated solution. Several of the recent "awards" tables have adopted this style. It's not up to the FLC community to make the recommendations you have noted however. That's down to those wikiprojects. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

FL changed scope

Came across List of tallest buildings in Rhode Island, a FL, in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States by city. Rhode Island is small, but it's not a city, so I changed the category. Looking closer, it's written to be about Providence and promoted at FLC as a Providence list but now includes buildings outside of Providence, which is presumably why it was moved. Best way to handle this? No idea how up to date it is, the extent to which it covers RI cities outside of Providence, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with the idea of changing the scope since FL status doesn't lock articles into a certain state (and it's not like we want a tallest buildings in Newport list). In this case I think it's reasonable to assume that it is accurate for having the tallest buildings outside Providence, and it could become out of date even without this change anyway. The move however was poorly performed, with the lead and other prose sections still only about Providence, so a trout for the half-assed job. Reywas92^Talk 03:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

New kind of FL

Hi all. Sorry I have been away for the past few months. I have been working on and off on Public Works by Daniel Chester French for about 6 months now. I have the list, mostly, complete, but I am stuck on the lead. Would any of the FL regulars be interested in collaborating on this? There have been FLs that have been the buildings by an architect, but never the statues of a sculptor. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero, it looks good. You could discuss his early and later works, perhaps also the themes he adopted? Has there been any critical commentary of his sculptures? He appears to be best known for his Washington sculpture, that could be something you could mention in the lead too (with reference of course). Maybe also that all bar one appear to be located in the United States? Perhaps also the predominant media he used, bronze/marble, the odd copper/granite etc... Just a few initial thoughts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, The Rambling Man! --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Guerillero It may also be worth touching on some overarching parts of his life and how they affected his sculpture, maybe he was inspired by a fellow sculptor that he met at some point in his life and some of his works started resembling him; maybe he moved to Paris and the culture there inspired his style to became more abstract. Perhaps there was a patron or location he created a lot for which he had a strong association/connection with (he seems to be particularly prolific in Massachusetts). Otherwise, TRM's suggestions above are sound. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Query on the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items

@WP:FLC director and delegates: is there a reason for the "If you review a list, strike it through from this list. An FLC coordinator will remove it as appropriate." in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/backlog/items? It seems to perhaps do little more than waste time; I only ask because FAC's similar template (though not the exact same thing) doesn't work in this manner. Best - Aza24 (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Optimism, I suppose; ideally the FLC community would be self-powered, where items would be in the source review section temporarily and having a reviewer cross it off would be useful to other reviewers passing through to not waste their time. As it is, you and CAPTAIN MEDUSA are the only ones to ever update that template besides the delegates, and we don't have any data to know if it's useful to reviewers in general but just keep adding and removing items as it goes. If you don't find it a good use of time you can skip it; doing source reviews/regular reviews is a hundred times more productive than updating that template in real time. --PresN 05:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose I meant, would I be allowed to simply remove one's whose source reviews I've completed, rather than crossing them out? Aza24 (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

? Fine if not, just thought I'd check Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Sorry, missed this- I'm fine with that, yes. --PresN 17:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Only tangentially related, but one of the nominations listed as "urgently needing reviews" was withdrawn over a week ago, and still remains up.--Alexandra^IDV 19:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I took care of this last night during a round of closures. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Signpost Featured content report

So, I've been in charge of this for a few months now. I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-12-28/Featured content and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-11-29/Featured content are good examples of how I intend to carry on if not directed otherwise.

How are people feeling about how I handle things? Any advice or feedback? Would people like to review my drafts? My plan for the future is to finish them as early as possible, so there's plenty of time for a review phase. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Not much feedback here; I've been enjoying the longer descriptions! --PresN 21:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Same here. I had read them before and just again now and find no major issues. The only thing I wonder is if the FLC/FAC/FTC/FPC could be linked; mainly to encourage others, show off the WP process etc. Not a pressing issue though of course. Aza24 (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, they are, just not in the header. Whether that should change is probably a stylistic discussion for the Signpost as a whole. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 13:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Page watchers here may have some input to give for the move request of the featured topic candidates page: Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates#Requested move 5 January 2021. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Accolades" vs "Awards and nominations"

Hello all. I see we have a mixture of the above now, e.g. List of awards and nominations received by The Good Place and List of accolades received by The Big Short (film). Unless I missed the discussion, there appears to be no tangible difference in what each "kind" of list is doing, the former title being explicit and long, the latter being snappier but less specific. I don't think we should continue to use both if they really are considered synonymous. I would value people's input on this matter. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I agree that there should be consistency with the article titles. Maybe a discussion over at WT:TITLE would be helpful to generate more discussion.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Accolades seems extremely misleading as the list you mention includes nominations as well... this is certainly something that should be sorted. Aza24 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of incidents of political violence in Washington, D.C./archive1

Just a heads-up to the directors that this FLC hasn't been closed correctly - the nominator was advised that they should probably withdraw it and immediately deleted it from the main FLC page but it hasn't technically been closed...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Daily marker by FACbot

For some reason when doing the daily marker, FACbot didn't move one of the older nominations down, not sure what happened here. --Lightlowemon (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

My annual notice

Hello, fellow members of the FLC community. As is the case every year, my busy season in real life is picking up right now and will keep me busy for the next couple of months. I plan on keeping TFL fully stocked with blurbs as usual, but may not have time for as many FLC closures as I typically try to perform. The other closers are active, so I have every confidence that they will keep FLC updated until things ease up for me. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I nominate more than one?

Hi

Question. Can I nominate more than one list at the time? I was thinking up finishing up the 2nd Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea today... Or do I have to wait until the process for 1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea is finished?

Per the instructions: Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Then how do I get people to review it? :P --Ruling party (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ask around, Wikiprojects etc. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi. What constitutes a list? Does there need to be a specific amount of listed items (like 5 or 10 or 15)? --Ruling party (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Our rule of thumb has always been "about ten" but it's somewhat flexible depending on the subject matter. If an FL is deemed "too short" then its best bet is WP:GAN. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Lovely! That means that 9 items probably work. I have this list 2nd Central Auditing Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea—it will never become a Good Article—and its the perfect list (but very short). Is it your personal opinion that this can never become a WP:FL because it has 7 items?--Ruling party (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a huge stretch to get to FL. With so many red links and literally no prose, I'd say it would be a quick-fail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I know that it doesn't have FL standard now; I was more discussing the length of the list... But those an FL also need to have few if no red links? --Ruling party (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:WIAFL criterion 5a. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please consider making this (more) explicit in the criteria

@WP:FLC director and delegates: "Every list item that meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria needs to have a stand-alone article written about it" requires way more work than what the actual FL criteria's wording "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked" implies, and I would've liked to know this beforehand so that I could've showed up at FLC prepared and not, like now, end up in a situation where I'm forced to choose between withdrawing an FLC or quickly writing twenty or so articles in a short amount of time.

Please consider changing the wording of the criteria so this is clearer, because if you're, like me, writing about a set of items that WP does not already have good coverage of individually, this is going to make up the vast majority of the FLC prep work.

Clarifying that this is not me asking for laxer rules or a "free pass" - I'm only asking that major things like this are communicated clearly. I much prefer to show up to FLC and other WP processes prepared, and to not have a deadline for writing a lot of material that I could've done at my leisure before the nomination--Alexandra^IDV 11:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well realistically this is nothing to do with FLC per se. If those books are notable then we should link them. It's somewhat misleading to have some (with articles) linked and others completely unlinked (which may pass GNG, who knows, I don't because there's no coverage in the article of their critical reception or sales or anything). This is just a regular Wikipedia-wide expectation. I'm surprised it's come as a surprise. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Reiterating that I'm not trying to get a free pass on this, only that it should be clearly communicated. "It's got nothing to do with FLC, but it's also an absolute requirement and will massively impact it" does not seem right.--Alexandra^IDV 12:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No, just to be clear, I'm reviewing your FLC and it's my opinion that if the unlinked books are notable then they should be linked. I think it's very misleading to have only those books with articles linked when the others (some/all of which may be notable enough) don't. I'm only a reviewer and other people may decide differently of course. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before. Perhaps I need to spend more time reviewing FLCs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And if I recall correctly, we did have a similar example several years ago, and I can't quite remember what it was, south-east Asian poetry or something (?) where we had just this issue, and the nominator created the articles. Evading the red link requirement of WP:WIAFL is not what we want to encourage in our "best work". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the exact thing I'm saying - that the red link criterion should be clear in its wording and placement so that editors do not unintentionally "evade" it when reading it differently from what's intended. Note that it is part of the "visual appeal" criterion rather than the "comprehensiveness" one, and that interpreting it as "don't link items unless articles exist, to visually avoid red links" therefore seems reasonable.--Alexandra^IDV 12:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

But it's not. The point is that Wikipedia-wide we should be linking articles which are notable. To selectively not do that here against the spirit of Wikipedia, not FLC. But my position is clear, I don't believe any re-wording or explanation needs to be added to the criteria, so I'll leave the discussion to others as I have nothing else to add. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm in slight disagreement here with the conclusion. I agree that it's good to redlink notable list subjects, and I agree that visually it's better to not have a sea of redlinks. I don't think it's very reasonable, however, to expect nominators in lesser-edited subject areas to create dozens of articles just so the text color is blue. They're making a list, not a capstone to an entire Topic. I also don't think this is something that we enforce, regardless- just flipping through the more-supported nominations in niche areas up right now, List of presidents of the National Rifle Association has half of the list red/un-linked, and Bibliography of E. T. Whittaker is almost entirely unlinked; obviously Alexandra also already has three FLs in this series where the majority are unlinked.

That said, lets make sure we're actually in agreement about the problem itself- @Alexandra IDV: if you were to redlink titles in this list that met the GNG, how many would be linked? Assuming that's a bunch, in a world where those articles were written, would you see them as separate articles? Or a collective article like "Wraith Guidebooks"? (Since "meets notability guidelines" isn't always the same thing as "editorially should be separate small articles"). I'm not sure that "Assuming that's a bunch" is even true, given that I see that two of the extant articles have notability tags (put on by you!) already, so maybe none of the blacklinks should be linked and this is all theoretical. --PresN 15:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The NRA presidents one is the right way forward because those individuals will be inherently notable as a result of their position so an article for them will pass GNG. I haven't reviewed the Whittaker article because it looks unlikely that the nominator is returning. I think our "best work" in lists should act as a capstone to the items they encapsulate. If it's a list of completely non-notable items bar one or two then I'd very much doubt it would be our "best work". As this is the only article on the subject, one would expect either to link out to all the other articles for further information, or that all the items in the list are adequately described within the scope of this article. I don't see either being the case right now. I should add that I am simply reviewing this list, and indeed I haven't opposed it, and further indeed, even if I do, the closing delegate can clearly weigh up consensus if I'm in the minority. I just think we have lost track a little bit of the purpose of such list articles. It's not for just listing a bunch of no-links and saying almost literally nothing about them, that's not exemplifying the best Wikipedia can offer in my opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The first line here isn't remotely accurate. Presidents of non-profit organization are not "inherently notable". Even though the NRA and its leadership are widely known now, they do not automatically have the need for an article because they are among this list. One of the great benefits of lists is that they allow us to cover items that are not otherwise notable on their own. In the case of these books, few are notable and they should not be created just for the sake of being created. Alexandra, I think your list is just fine and is a prime example of this. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Presidents of non-profit organization are not "inherently notable"" I said presidents of the NRA would be. I think you need to stop mis-representing my thinking, thank you. Don't do it again. This list is not Wikipedia's finest work, "just fine" is not the same as "our very best work" The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No. I forgot the word "this", and presidents of this non-profit organization are not inherently notable. Many of the early presidents are notable for their other roles, and those without those do not get an article for leading the NRA alone. I *know* you did not mean that applies to all organizations. YOU need to stop misrepresenting my thinking, thank you, because when I said "just fine" I did NOT say this our very best work or give it a support yet, but is just fine with respect to not having red or blue links. The page certainly needs improvement but creating articles for non- or marginally-notable books is not that. Reywas92^Talk 20:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm done here with you, I'm sorry you made mistakes and directly mis-represented my thoughts on this matter. For what it's worth, the first thing that actually needs to be established (and if you'd read the FLC, you'd know I already asked this) is "are any of the other books actually notable?" As there's no answer forthcoming and everything I write is being misinterpreted for one reason or another, I'll let someone else play this one out. Have a great day. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm; I disagree in that a list of items can be notable even if the individual elements are not notable or should not be given individual articles; the notability of the set does not necessarily imply that the elements are notable on their own. You have a point I think, though, that if the elements aren't notable enough for articles there should maybe be more description of them here, I'll think about that. I know you're just acting as a reviewer here, but since Giants is busy I'm going to have to be the one to close the nomination either way so it's a matter of delegate opinion in the end anyways. --PresN 20:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

With whom are you disagreeing? We don't even know if the individual elements of this list are notable. If they are then they should be given equal footing to the ones which have articles, i.e. be linked. My original question at the FLC stands. "Only five of these items have an article. What makes those more notable than all the others?" The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm really surprised to find out redlinks are discouraged to this degree. As per WP:REDYES, redlinks should be created "everywhere" they are relevant. I had never considered redlinks as a "visual appeal" issue; they're just as "pretty" as blue links, and at least just as useful. When was this concensus to minimize redlinks in featured lists made? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's a valid question. The "minimal proportion of red links" clause was added here in May 2008 by Tony1 with "Implementing revised criteria" as the edit summary. So it's been around for nearly 13 years. I'll dig through the archives to see what the discussion was that led to the change. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  I found the discussion here. As it's been a while, there's no good reason why we shouldn't revisit it to see if there's a consensus to maintain the wording per the status quo. In actuality, it's not quite the same issue as I raised here which was "are any of the other books notable enough to have an article?" but I didn't get a real answer, just a "I regret ever getting involved with FLC" kind of odd response. Does someone want to start an RFC to determine if FLs can contain as many red links as needed (presumably up to the point where every entry is a redlink)? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll make one, I think we should align on this since it's been a while. --PresN 14:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted FLC page

It looks like Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fire temples in Iran/archive1 was deleted as part of a sockpuppet investigation against POS78 (log). This deletion has caused problems – the talk page currently lists an option to open the nomination, and the transcluded page is currently redlinked at WP:FLC. Should this page have been deleted? I'm not convinced it should have been, especially since the list itself was kept, since this will imply the FLC never happened. At any rate, the nomination will have to be manually closed/removed at this point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thanks, I've restored it and closed it correctly (and moved it to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of fire temples in Iran/archive1 to match the current article title. --PresN 20:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC on the use of redlinks in FLCs

Lets formalize the discussion happening in the section above a bit. Per The Rambling Man's research, in 2008 as part of an overhaul of the FL criteria, Tony1 added a line that is still in those criteria: "it has a minimal proportion of red links", now worded as "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". This line is under "Visual style", meaning it is a matter of aesthetics, not just WP:REDLINK. Aesthetics have always been a part of the FL criteria, and as per the above discussion redlinks vs. blacktext can reflect the notability of the items in the list or of the list itself, at least in the mind of the reader.

In the 13 years since then, we've grown from 687 to 3759 FLs, and opinions have started to diverge on this requirement. This RfC is to determine if, as a project, we want to keep, remove, or reword this requirement. Please note that, like all RfCs, this is not a vote but a discussion, and it will be closed by the FL director/delegates when we reach a consensus. I've provided some section headers to organize thoughts, but please elaborate on your opinion and not just !vote. --PresN 15:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove requirement entirely

• I do not relate to the sentiment that redlinks are less visually appealing than blue links, and I consider redlinks an important part of Wikipedia. A high-quality article should always contain redlinks where they are appropriate, and these can be a great jump-in point for new editors. I have the position that redlinks are better than very short stubs, though of course that perspective isn't shared across the community. Either way, they definitely don't seem like a "visual appeal" concern. The color is about the same saturation and value, just a different hue. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Reword requirement

• I'm on the fence about rewording or removing the requirement. As I said above, I don't think that it's reasonable to expect list creators in under-edited areas to make dozens of articles just so that the links are blue. I personally would rather just not link items in that case, though I know that's against REDLINK (which isn't always followed). --PresN 15:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• Reword. Leave it to the discretion of the closer (i.e. Giants, PresN or TRM), after weighing reviewer comments. I don't usually weigh in on big-picture FLC questions, but this happens to be exactly the question I've been wrestling with for my next series of lists (User_talk:Dank/A–B#Main list is an early, partial version). At the moment, I've got around 40 red links in what will be the second column of the table. These reds links are enticing and useful for some plants editors, and the plants project may very well want to use lists like this one to encourage project members to create articles. If so, then I'd rather leave the links red for now, and I'd hope the closing FLC delegate would take the wishes of the wikiproject into account. But I get there are other lists where too many red links could signal a problem. There's a lot I don't know about FLC, but I can't see a way to create a rule for red links that will work for every list. So ... closer's discretion is my vote. This will obviously lead to problems if people feel like they didn't get the memo, but I don't see a way around that. All I can say, to the closers and the whole community, is ... thanks for making it work, when it works, which is usually. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Per my discussion in the FLC which caused this, I think FLs should be our best work and if that means we have to create articles or at the very least link articles which would pass WP:N, then we should do that. Selectively linking only items which have articles and not linking others is bad form in my opinion. I'm not sure the "minimal proportion of redlinks" needs to be reworded but we should perhaps look at ensuring FLs are the best we can do and that means assessing the entries in the list for notability. If they are notable then we should be linking them. I am undecided at this time as to whether a list composed entirely of red links is something we can claim to be the "best work" on Wikipedia. I imagine this would certainly not fly at WP:FAC if an article was composed entirely of red links, rules or not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentiment that "FLs should be our best work" and comparing this process to FAC is certainly understandable, but also somewhat unrealistic. FLC is already dramatically different; we don't do image reviews nor engage in the same sourcing requirements. For the latter, during source reviews here, I'm a lot more lenient on reliabillity since the criteria does not require "high quality sources" nor a "thorough survey of the relevant literature" as the FAC criteria does. As such, compared to FAC we already have two shortfalls in "best work", suggesting it may be improper to be hold such a stringent the red link standard in FLC, when it's not even in FAC. Additionally, there are too many issues with such a criteria in my mind—at least initially, which is why I'm writing in the discussion section.
    • Editors might resort to not red linking to avoid the criteria
    • It might discourage editors from working on lists, if they know they won't be able to pass FLC without creating and improving a bunch of other articles
    • It is at odds with WP:RED—as far as I can tell—since editors are not required to red link nor create the articles they red link.
    • It was added without any discussion in the first place! (As far as I know, at least).
  • Aza24 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • • Editors are avoiding red links, that is true. Whether this process is or isn't or should be roughly equivalent to FAC, I still think I would find it very hard to promote a list made entirely of red links. There was a discussion, I linked it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I can definitely understand asking for evidence for whether redlinked entries should be redlinked. If one does have a lot of redlinks in a list, the nominating editor should probably ensure that those entries indeed meet GNG. Compiling a short list of sources to confirm that a redlink meets GNG is not the same as writing an article, though. This is just following and confirming WP:REDNO. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• I can provide an example. The class the stars fell on is a list of the general officers of the West Point class of 1915. They are all notable, and articles could be created on all of them (ample sources exist), but we haven't yet done so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Renaming the plant lists

The concern has been raised at WT:PLANTS#List of plant genus names that the Featured Lists List of plant genus names (A–C), etc., have the wrong name. Deletion has been threatened ... I don't expect they'd get very far with that, but still, my mood has shifted ... I'm now looking for "bulletproof" names. Actually, this is kind of a non-issue, because I've been working for a long time on a much longer "List of accepted plant genera" ... so the "List of plant genus names" was going to have to get a new, disambiguated name sooner or later anyway. I'd like to suggest either "List of accepted plant genera from Stearn" or "List of plant genera from Stearn and POWO" "List of plant genus etymologies from Stearn", with similar changes for my other two series of plant lists. (There's a little bit to unpack there, because different people mean different things by "plant" and by "accepted", and I'm perfectly happy to go with the flow on that.) Any discussion or objections? (The first option, with "accepted", will be better if it doesn't cause trouble, but there's a chance that people will want to argue about it, and if so, then it's probably just better to surrender rather than sucking up time arguing about it, since these lists will eventually be eclipsed by a longer list.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand the point of these lists. Why is it interesting or useful to see a list of plant genera that are included in one particular non-comprehensive and outdated work? But in any case, they certainly shouldn't be named as something they are not, which is the case currently. Somatochlora (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, this was my concern with the species names lists too...... I decided to just leave your lists alone after you complained about my complaints, but why were these approved with such blatantly false names? And restrictive criteria? These were never a list of plant genus names, they're only genuses Stearn lists in one particular book because they're common/in a certain region/those a gardener may encounter, not a comprehensive list as expected for the encyclopedia. I randomly picked Abrophyllum from the top of A–C, which is in Category:Monotypic Asterales genera, but while your lists have that and Brunonia, they're missing the entire rest of the category. So yes, obviously the title should specify the inclusion criteria is based on Stearn. It would be very good to see a more comprehensive list (User:Dank/D–J does have most of Category:Monotypic Campanulaceae genera the FLs are for some reason missing), but in that case, it would render the Stearn lists superfluous and they should be delisted and merged, not disambiguated.

Looking at just that latter category, List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H)/(I-Z) are missing the plant epithets scaevolifolia, longiflora, lobophyllus, and monocephalus, so a correction to List of descriptive plant epithets from Stearn (A–H) should be made posthaste. Not sure why incomplete lists are featured though. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My recollection is that we covered some of these points on your talk page a long time ago ... maybe I'm not remembering it right ... or maybe you're forgetting the key details. I was actually the one who suggested that we put "Stearn" in the title of these lists from the beginning, and that was rejected by reviewers. I knew the title might cause trouble one day, but I was happy to go along, because this is standard practice at FLC ... List of vegetable oils, for instance, doesn't cover "all vegetables", it's a list of the things identified as vegetable oils by the sources that were used to construct the list. So, the reviewers believed, and I believe, that the current name of the 4 plant genera lists based on Stearn is fine ... that is, until there's another plant genus list, and then the current lists need some kind of disambiguator, and Stearn is the obvious choice. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to give the wrong impression ... I'm not put out. I'm trying to eventually get a list of maybe 14,000 genera, maybe more or less, that has high-quality etymological information. I decided to start with a list from Stearn ... and I'm pretty happy with how things have been working so far ... if I had started with a list of 14,000 rows, I wouldn't have known how to do it, reviewers wouldn't have known what to do, and it would have blown up for a bunch of reasons. You're saying that I made some bad calls ... if so, who cares, as long as we get where we're going?

So, back to the main question: we currently have four genus lists. I proposed a name change above; I'm waiting for feedback on that. If anyone thinks more than a name change is needed, if you want to delist or delete the lists, then follow the instructions to have FLs delisted, and we'll see how that goes. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing the second option to "List of plant genus etymologies from Stearn". (The second is a little misleading since the etymologies come from several sources, but it might be necessary to get the word "etymologies" in there somewhere to avoid trouble.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple of people at the plants wikiproject have said things that cast doubt on these suggested names. Working on it. I'll report back here soon. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that the plants project may want changes to the existing 4-page genus list ... and it doesn't make sense to me to rename the list until they have a clearer idea of what it is they want. Minor tweaks would be one thing; major changes would be something else. I've asked them to discuss it and to give me two or three weeks to finish working on my current list series. Discussion is welcome, here or in the thread at WT:PLANTS. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm mostly finished with the current list series, and ready for comments, questions and complaints at Talk:List of plant genus names (A–C)#Round Two. I'm proposing an expansion of that list series. - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a proposal at that link to try to use one or two FLC nominations to turn the current 4 lists into 4–6 lists (this would be in maybe a month) ... if anyone objects, please let us know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Input needed

I've run into some issues with my FLC Statues of the National Statuary Hall Collection. The white background of the US states flag template is hard to see with a plain cell background and was wondering whther anyone has addressed a similar issue in the past. Thanks. (I'm not sure whether this is the best place to ask this. Sorry if that's the case.)

@HAL333: Have you tried the parameter |border=? (You may have to use Template:Flagg for it to work.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Make "Introductory Summary" a requirement for Featured topics

Hi all. Comments most welcome at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates#Make "Introductory Summary" a requirement for Featured topics. Best - Aza24 (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Pop Smoke discography

The Pop Smoke discography needs to be closed. It has been opened since February and has not been going well at all. I am planning on retiring in July and by the looks of it, the article will not be promoted. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this as you wanting the nomination withdrawn, so closed, though to be clear, it "has not been going well" because you didn't return to the nomination to respond to concerns for the past couple months rather than due to any major problems- if you don't retire, feel free to renominate it if you're able to respond to comments. --PresN 13:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

6-month old nomination just added

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Spaceflight before 1951/archive1 was just added (by me) to the bottom of the page. It's in a weird state- it was started in December but never transcluded here, which normally would see it deleted (as I just did with two other ancient, empty nominations)... except that enough people were directly notified that it actually has a lot of discussion and two supports. So, I've added it here instead, as our oldest nomination by quite a lot. --PresN 15:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated! With the issues with the tables (which is a VERY big issue since it affects all of the Timeline articles) and also the back and forth re: reliability of sources, is there some sort of lesser level of quality these articles could be given that still reflects the ridiculous amount of time I've put into salvaging to make them serviceable? Is there a "Good List" analog to "Good Article"? Thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

FL: 1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea

Has this passed? Is there a reason why it hasn't passed? --Ruling party (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It has not passed; although it's been open for quite a while, it hasn't gotten enough reviews for me to feel comfortable promoting it (and presumably the other two feel the same). I don't have the availability to give it a review myself at the moment, sorry. --PresN 04:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: How long does it need to wait? Other lists that were nominated at the same time have already passed. --Ruling party (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruling party: It's not based on time, it's based on getting enough in-depth reviews. Other lists that were nominated after that have passed because they got sufficient reviewer attention; no comments have been left on the 1st Central Committee FLC in almost 2 months. I'd recommend seeking out likely reviewers or projects to take a look. --PresN 03:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re possibly creating a Good List criteria

Please be advised there of a discussion at WT GA: Lists and GAN. Any advice, suggestions or comments are welcome. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

General vs specific references

I'm currently working on a filmography list for an Italian genre director (current userspace draft here) and have largely been using the British Film Institute's filmography for them as a general reference. I have no concerns about its accuracy or reliability but it does create the impression, I feel, of perhaps an under-referenced list; the alternative would be individually cite each entry here, which could be done and would create a reflist of about eighty citations instead of less than a dozen, which seems more well-referenced but in practical terms is really no different. I don't mind the work involved in switching approaches but wanted to run the query past people here; is citing a large chunk of a list to a single general reference best practice or should this be supplemented with an individual reference for each entry as well? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X – If a single source is the general reference for almost all entries, the simplest option would be to add them as a common source on the top of the "Ref(s)" column (as done in this FL, and this FLC), and not repeat them 71 times in the list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

To follow up on what Kavyansh.Singh said, it's okay to use a single source as a general reference for the entire list by placing it at the start. However, I would personally suggest that you try to find individual references for each film where possible. I don't think the BFI's list is complete, since IMDb lists many films under his filmography that are not included here, so those would need individual references. If you want to see examples, Wikipedia:Featured lists#Filmographies is a good place to start. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've supplemented the BFI list here and there where it has gaps I've identified so I know it's not exhaustive, the query was more about supplementing for what it does contain—citing the general list and a specific citation for a given film together. I suppose I should go with it anyway, it can't hurt to have more than one mention each time. This wouldn't be the first filmography at FLC, I'm responsible for the David Lynch one at that link too, so I'm used to using far more references than this. As for imdb—they're using translated titles whereas I've followed the convention of the RSes and gone with the original release title, so their list looks like it's got a lot of different entries but they're just secondary-market names for what's already listed. There do seem to be some early entries there I might need to investigate though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I didn't realize there was the issue with translated titles on IMDb, so thanks for noting that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Just submitted my first FLC – how can I help others?

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Hi, everyone! I just submitted my first FLC today and would like to ask how I can help with others before I just jump right in. Is there an expectation of certain kinds of reviews performed by certain people? Or can anyone just contribute? Tried to find a "How to help with a Featured List Candidate", but couldn't, so I thought I'd ping you folks here. I will try not to be a pest. –Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to FLC! I'm not a delegate, but I've done a fair bit around here. When it comes to helping out, any feedback you can provide for a list will be helpful. Some reviewers focus more on accessibility, images, and other technical elements, but even simple comments like "This part doesn't make sense to me" are useful. In short, just jump in! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

One way to help while you're still getting used to reviews is to aid with source spotchecks. It's something anyone can do even with no experience, just take a few of the sources in a candidate and check that the information they're being used to support is accurate, and that the list isn't copying their wording too closely. Additionally, simply checking prose to be sure it's free of mistakes and reads well is important. It can be daunting to check tables for accessibility issues, which is a common feature of FLCs, but if you're doing the things you're comfortable with, just have a read over other reviewer's comments to see what issues they raise and how they're addressed, and before long you'll pick up a degree of familiarity with everything. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute to reviewing any nomination here. Adding to the suggestion of the above two users, it is suggested to start reviewing the oldest nomination first, as they are more backlogged then new ones. It'll be a bit confusing initially, but reviewing/creating a featured list is much easier. Start with nominations which you are more familiar with (based on your nomination, I assume that List of plant family names with etymologies would be of your interest) Feel free to ask others for help. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely ... any opinions you have on List of plant family names with etymologies would be welcome, with or without an eventual support. FLC is more low-key than FAC, and if you look through past nominations, you'll see there are many different reviewing styles; just be clear about what you're covering and not covering. - Dank (push to talk) 05:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: I am a delegate, and I second the other comments- feel free to jump in with a review on any nomination that's as small or as large as you want. FLC doesn't have people doing specialist reviews for the most part, so the easiest way to review something is just to grab a nomination that catches your eye, read through the list, and leave a review mentioning any problems or things that are confusing or things that you're just not sure on that you saw. Any improvement is an improvement, so don't worry about having subject-matter expertise or focusing on any particular element. The box at the top of the FLC list gives nominations from the bottom of the list that haven't gotten a lot of attention yet, but you don't need to feel obligated to review those as opposed to other nominations if you see one that's interesting. Thanks for nominating and reviewing, and don't worry too much about either! --PresN 12:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! This is all very helpful. I'll try to be of some service. Eewilson (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image reviews?

Well, from the last 1-2 months, I have been doing image reviews for various nominations. But... I noticed that various other nominations have been promoted without any image reviews. Neither did any reviewer or the promoted explicitly mentioned the image review to be passed. Per criteria 5(b), it is a requirement of the featured lists, but has not been carried out. And, few lists that I reviewed did have issues with some images. Any thoughts?? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Giants2008, PresN and The Rambling Man. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good shout, we should always check all images, and I guess us co-ordinators etc should mandate that before promotion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see people explicitly confirming that lists are stable or that the structure is appropriate either. Reviewers tend to point out things that need to be fixed, not affirmative statements that specific elements are good. 5(b) is a requirement that FLs have appropriate media, not that a particular "image review" be done and noted. Reywas92^Talk 18:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

An image review generally ensures that they aren't inappropriate, in as much as making sure they're properly licensed and/or meet NFCC. The structure being appropriate generally is addressed as accessibility concerns are often one of the first things noted in a review, for example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

FL criteria 5(b) — "Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly."

To check the copyright status, as TRM points out, we should always check all images. Now, if an image review is not done, under no circumstances should it be assumed that all the images are appropriately licenced. Often, no one has even checked the images. For example, in this FLC, there were indeed issues with the image licencing, which hadn't been pointed out until an image review was conducted. Now, if I hadn't done that, in my opinion, it seems highly unlikely that someone would actually check the licencing of all those 100+ or so images. Missing image reviews are just like missing spot-checks in the source reviews here. Even if they are conducted for just first-time nominators, no one explicitly mentions that the list had passed spot-checks. If reviewers were just for pointing out the things that need to be addressed, then the nominations which have no participation in 30 days should be assumed as perfect, and be promoted, which is not possible in practical sense. Hence, I think that image reviews are a necessity. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: The reason us closers haven't always been insistent on full-fledged image review is that we really haven't had anyone providing them at FLC on a consistent basis, unlike FAC. Therefore, it was somewhat impractical to insist that FLC candidates receive such a review before promotion, as few lists would ever have been passed. If you or anyone else would like to commit to doing the job, then I would be more than happy to hold off on promoting lists until they receive image reviews. Similarly, if the FLC community insists that image reviews be mandatory before promotion in a thread such as this, then of course I would follow such a consensus, and I presume that the other closers would as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Giants2008 for addressing the issue. I can do some image reviews, but can't commit to the job, because in no way am I an expert of image copyright. There are many users more experienced than me. It is up-to the community to decide whether we should mandate image reviews, but I think if it is a part of the criteria, it should be done. However, I can commit for doing source-to-text spot-checks for first-time nominators. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My situation is a little unusual, because most of my images are plants. People who upload plants to Commons are generally well-behaved, but images will occasionally be defective in one way or another. The next time I get an objection to an image from a list reviewer or image reviewer, I'll create a page at User:Dank/Image questions, where people who are knowledgeable about these things (i.e., not me) and care about these things can identify and solve problems. I always have more images than I need anyway, and it's almost never a problem to remove some of them. I think plants editors will appreciate having a page where they can be alerted to potential image problems. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You know, I have this page on my watchlist in part to see if someone's asking for an image review (which I occasionally do at FAC) but I don't remember ever seeing such a question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked Buidhe for Image review of two of my nominations, but rest all of my nominations here have passed without image reviews. May I request @Nikkimaria and @Buidhe for their thoughts in this discussion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Trouble with reviewing FLCs is that many of them have a LOT of images. With FAC there tends to be fewer images to check. Nikki and I both do a lot of image reviews, but we can't do everything. Still, image reviews are absolutely essential to any content review process IMO because many images on Commons may appear to be freely licensed but in fact are not. Copyright issue with images are encountered much more frequently than text-based plagiarism. (t · c) buidhe 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO if images are to be included in the criteria then they should be reviewed (although I'm not sure why they're a subpoint of "style" here...), and we can't assume that an absence of comment means they're good to go. I'm happy to double-check reviews if anyone wants to get into doing them, and there's also guidance available: my own User:Nikkimaria/Passing an image review as well as the Dispatches on reviewing free and non-free media. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nikki! -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how this one is going, but, can we consider a consensus here that image reviews are essential? Or there needs to be some sort of RfC or ... ? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is my review finished?

Hi all, I submitted List of international goals scored by Ian Rush for FLC a while ago and so far have received 3 reviews. I have responded to all of them and been passed by two of them (I have tried to contact the third reviewer but to no avail). The last of those was in November. Do I need to wait for more or has my nomination passed? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @REDMAN 2019. We have a bit of backlog in FLC, with few nominations stalling for a long time. Your nomination just has 1 support, accessibility review, and a passed image review. Few more review(s) and a source review would be needed for achieving a consensus to promote. It is not a matter of time, but number and quality of reviews which helps to determine consensus. I'll try review your nomination soon. Meanwhile, try to review other nominations, which are as backlogged as yours. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will be patient and will see if I can get around to having a look at some other FLC noms. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better @REDMAN 2019, my nomination for List of Yuri on Ice episodes has been up since August and I'm still waiting to see if it gets promoted or not. ISD (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

We've had a sharp deficit of reviews the last 2 months. Unfortunately, that means that some (several) nominations are hanging on much longer than normal. The only way to fix this is to increase the total amount of reviews being done, either by reviewing other people's nominations, getting wikiproject members to review your own list, or ideally both. We seem to be doing alright on the "specialist" reviews (accessibility, source, and image reviews) but we need more content reviews across the board. --PresN 16:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Bot warning

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Unable to find nomination page 'Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of departmental councils (France)/archive1' Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed; someone put the FLC template on it but never actually started the FLC itself. --PresN 00:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Table sortability on mobile

Sorry this isn't directly relevant, but I know this group knows the value of sortable wikitables – and the work it can take to get them to sort properly! Did you know that the ~half of Wikipedia readers who access the site via mobile or app can't sort tables at all? A vote in the Community Wishlist Survey to get this finally implemented would be appreciated. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 22:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Annual notice

Hi everyone. As I like to point out at this time of year, this is when I start becoming busy in real life and having less time for editing in the next few months. While I'll still produce TFL blurbs in a timely manner, my amount of FLC closures and list reviews is about to drop off. For the past several years, the community has always picked up whatever slack I leave, and I have full confidence it will do so again, although I'll try to sneak in whatever work I can. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I can help with maintaining Wikipedia:Today's featured list/Statistics, as I did it for November 2021 lists. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope row - year vs. Scope title - filmographies, discographies

I used to do Scope row on the year in lists. Then it was suggested that because the Scope row is for screen readers, it makes more sense for the Scope row to be on individual titles, not the years. So, that's how I do mine now. You can have a whole slew of titles under one year, but you really want the screen reader to pick up each individual title. Yes? I've noticed there's no consensus on how to do it. But I think it would be a good idea if this were a set FLC guideline, one way or the other. If not, it just becomes one person's preference over another. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a guideline, actually, which is wiki-wide rather than FLC-specific: MOS:DTAB. The relevant wording is: "Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively."

A lot of lists fall short of that- because it looks a little odd to have the rowscope on the second column, they have it on the first column, even if the first isn't unique. You're right that in a table about albums, where each row is about an album, the row scope should be on the album title cell, not the year of release. By the same logic, the album title should be the first column of the table. For some reason though, a lot of discographies and other lists are generally set up on wiki with the release year in the first column instead of the album title. Putting the row scope on the non-first column is halfway there, but the better fix is putting the subject of the row in the first column. --PresN 14:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Private Practice (season 1)

Hello everyone. I recently received a note on my talk page about Private Practice (season 1), which I nominated for a successful FLC back in 2017. It was about whether or not this should be considered an article or a list since Grey's Anatomy (season 17) is considered an article and is currently a featured article. This question was raised in the Private Practice FLC, and upon further reflection, I do think that it is more of an article than a list since it has a significant amount of prose in the body.

My question is: what should I do now? Should I put this up for a WP:FLRC on the grounds that I do not think it is really a list anymore? I wanted to check in with more experienced editors about this to hopefully get some feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly not an isolated occurrence; there are lots of older season articles that were promoted to FL instead of GA/FA. Personally, I don't think it's worth trying to change past lists; we should just focus on sending new season articles to GAN/FAC since that seems to be the current consensus. I don't see any reason to send the article to a formal FLRC since quality doesn't seem to be an issue. If you wanted to shift this from list to article status, maybe we could send the article to GAN and, if it's promoted there, we could have an informal FLRC so its delisting would be documented? (I don't know if this would mess up anything with the bots that track those changes – someone else would have to attest to that.) But that would be entirely optional, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Thank you for your response. I agree with your point about focusing on the new articles rather than looking back on the past lists. Your suggestion about sending it to GAN and seeing how it works out there makes sense to me. I do not have any immediate plans on working on this one, but I still wanted to get a better understanding of how this worked and you have helped me a lot with that. Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

And ... and

As an experiment, I want to take a minute here to talk about one of the tougher copyediting issues, namely, when it's okay to drop one "and" when you're trying to make a second "and" do double-duty. For the record, most of the style guides that weigh in on this think it's a bad idea ... Brian Garner calls this "cannibalism", because one "and" is eating the other one. The problem is, for hundreds of years, even respected writers have gleefully been leaving out conjunctions that you'd normally need ... for instance, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". There's something about leaving things out that strikes some writers and readers as forceful, cool. (See! I just did it.) Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, so there's no pressure to be cool here ... what's more important are things like simplicity and clarity. If you're wondering whether you need a certain "and", try changing the ordering of the words if your list. If "A and B" needs an "and", then almost always, "B and A" will need an "and", too. Discussion? Examples? Have I left anything out? - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope you get some varied responses here. Because until quoted above, I've gone through my entire adult life believing Lincoln said, "and for the people". And if my brain automatically fills in the missing "and", I wonder if other copyeditors don't notice when it's missing, — Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes! It's so easy to miss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you'd need to give a more specific example for the FL context. I think it can be perfectly apprpriate sometimes to elide the "and", though Lincoln was speaking rhetorically not academically. Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

List of female 24 Hours of Le Mans drivers

Hi, I started a review on this list, but it seems that the nominator (more recently known as CatRacer22) has retired. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary to consult regular editors of an FLC before nominating?

Or is it ok to just go with the nomination? It just seems like an extra hassle I'd rather not do. --interstatefive  18:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Interstatefive: What really matters is the quality of the list and its compliance with the FL criteria. However, it is suggested for first-time nominators to consult some regulars or ask them for an informal review prior to nominating. This is a suggestion to help the nominators, not any formal requirement. It is also suggested that the nominators be a major contributor to the list they are nominating and have access to the sources. Which list do you have in mind for nominating? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any in mind for nominating yet, just wondering. Although I may have some in the near future. interstatefive  18:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Interstatefive: (edit conflict) You didn't mention which list you're talking about, but a quick skim of your recent contributions shows no list that you've been actively working on. So, to be clear here, what you're asking about is if you can do a drive-by nomination of a list you've either never edited or only briefly touched, without even doing the courtesy of putting a talk page post about nominating and waiting for a bit for responses? Yeah, that's not considered okay. Not only does it give no confidence that you are knowledgeable of either the subject matter or what's actually in the list article, but being explicitly unwilling to put forth the bare minimum amount of effort around courtesy and making sure that the editors actively involved in the list (if any exist) don't know of any deficiencies doesn't give a lot of confidence that you're going to see the nomination through responding to feedback. There's no rule against nominating things you haven't worked on, as Kavyansh.Singh correctly stated, but it's got a poor track record, and if the list has active editors it's pretty rude to not even bother to check if they're fine with it. --PresN 18:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

53rd Academy Awards

As you may know, I tend to write the Signpost reports for Featured content. Something weird is going on, because I keep finding lists that got... missed out of being reported on WP:Goings-on. This should have appeared in Wikipedia:Goings-on/July_17,_2022, but didn't (I've added it now), and very nearly got left out of the featured content report because of that. This isn't the first time I've found missing lists, but am kind of worried that if I found a couple that were missed, how many didn't I find? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Something appears to be wonky regarding FACBot; in checking the contribution history I see that when it processed the promotion it did update {{Announcements/New featured content}} (along with everything else), but not Goings-on; the FLCs it promoted 2 days before, such as List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1951, it did update Wikipedia:Goings-on/July 10, 2022. I checked all of the July promotions and this one was the only one missed. Goings-on is handled by EnterpriseyBot, so it's unlikely that a step was messed up there, and I don't see anything different about that page versus the week prior. Pinging Hawkeye7 in case the bot left any logs for why it skipped that step - I see some print statements in the code so maybe? --PresN 22:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the log, the coordinator promoted the article on 15 July, but the talk page was interfered with, holding up the bot processing. [1] Tbhotch (talk) corrected the problem on 18 July, [2] and the FACBot was then able to proceed with the processing the promotion that day. It reported this problem to me:

WARNING: Article dated 15 July 2022 but goings on page is for week starting 17 July 2022 -- skipping

So it missed the bus. I have confirmed that all the other steps required to be taken were carried out correctly. If you like, when this occurs I could have the bot:

• notify you on your talk page
• add the missing entry to the archive
• add the missing entry to the current list

Let me know what you want done, if anything. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As the list might not have been started yet, could you just have it tell me? Probably good to add it to the archive late as well, for the historical record.. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 00:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that makes complete sense now- both why this one got skipped and why it's something that occasionally happens- we've known for years that when the talk page gets messed up the bot won't run, and it happens on rare occasions when an editor doesn't read the invisible comment not to touch anything. If you don't add it to the archive (which I think is the best thing to do, as Cuerden may not always be the Signpost person for this) then I'll add a note to WP:FLCI that if a promotion gets delayed due to template shenanigans then we'll need to check that Goings-on gets updated. --PresN 00:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It might also be possible to add a note here, I suppose, noting it was skipped. More visibility might help. Also, I suppose if it gets added to the wrong week, it's really not the worst thing that could happen. It still gets credited, just possibly a little later. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 01:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, off-topic, but what happened last month? There were only two featured lists all month, which I don't think I've ever seen before. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 01:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think all three of us were busy/out of town at the same time, so promotions slowed down a lot, plus review and nomination volume was really low. Mostly the review count, I think; there's been a ton of stuff stalled at 1 or 2 reviews, often by people who would then have other lists nominated afterwards. It's picked up a bit this month, but it's still lower than I'd like. But yeah, according to WP:FLS it was actually the slowest month we've ever had - the only lower count was November 2020 at -9, where we actually still promoted 9 but delisted a block of 18. --PresN 05:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I have not implemented any changes. Three articles were affected this week:

• List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2020s in Romania
• List of awards and nominations received by Angel Locsin
• 2012 NFL Draft

This is because the goings on page is for the week commencing 31 July, but the articles were promoted on 30 July. In fact, the articles were promoted by the coordinator two hours after the previous bot run, and then the Goings On page was updated just minutes before the next. I will implement the changes above, but in the meantime, I will schedule an additional Bot run. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How can a nomination be withdrawn?

I have not found any reference to the withdrawal of a nomination. How can I withdraw a nomination? Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Borsoka there is no formal process, you just ping one of the coordinators on the candidacy page (you can use {{@FLC}}) and ask to withdraw it. Aza24 (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of the Book of Boba Fett characters

Sorry, but I am asking if other people could vote or make comments at List of The Book of Boba Fett characters. In my previous nomination, I got a pass from both reviewers but did not have enough votes. I do not want the same thing to happen again, and I already have a pass from someone. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Question

Are outline style lists eligible for FL? MeegsC (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@MeegsC: There's no rule against it, though none currently are; that said, you'd have to convince the reviewers that the outline was a comprehensive, sourced outline of the topic, and not just a series of links. --PresN 17:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

4,000 Featured Lists!

So with this edit, Giants2008 to our inventory of featured lists to 4,000. That's pretty cool. I wondered if any of us had any appetite to get an article into Signpost to highlight this milestone and perhaps to shine a light on what we're doing, principally to encourage more involvement? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally a good idea. I'll float the idea about - I'm no writer, but definitely worth something in the signpost. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

EpicPupper - you do some stuff with the signpost - anybody you know who might want to do a write up? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man / @Lee Vilenski, I'd be happy to write something for this issue! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Barbie's careers

The above has been nominated since 1st of August. Myself and another editor left some comments - no attempt has been made to address any of the comments including some concerns about sourcing, notability and accessibility. Bar an initial comment from one of the editors, there's been no further dialogue. At what point do we close the nomination? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

OSM mapping tool for lists of historic or other places

I want to suggest use of now-available tool, in any Good articles or Featured Lists or Featured Topics whose topics include sublists of places with coordinates.

It should be well-known, already, that {{GeoGroup}} provides a link to an OpenStreetMap showing locations of all coordinates given in an article.

Now, however, it is possible to create a similar link covering all the coordinates given in articles within a category. Often, a "List of lists" type article, covering historic sites, or stadiums, or other places, may be improved by a map showing all the locations in all of its sublists.

For example, to the Grade I listed buildings in Somerset, a Good Article and part of a Featured Topic, I just added: "Click here to see an interactive OpenStreetMap with locations of all Grade I listed buildings, Somerset-wide, for which coordinates are included in the list-articles linked below." This will currently be accurate, if and only if all Grade I listed buildings of Somerset, and no other places, are covered in members of Category:Lists_of_Grade_I_listed_buildings_in_Somerset.

Questions, comments welcome at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Historic_sites#OSM_mapping_of_all_historic_sites'_coordinates_across_multiple_list-articles,_e.g._historic_sites_in_a_country_or_region.

I hope this tip may be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Leads of lists

Look, I don't really want to be rude here, but... it does seem that a lot of lists (or, at least, enough to be noticable) pass with some major grammatical errors in their leads of late. Whenever I'm writing Featured Content reports for the Signpost, I spend a lot of time copyediting articles - and, well, I mean, something like this minor mistake happens in FAs, FLs, everywhere. It's easy to make, and easy to miss. But - and I kind of hate to call an article out, but I've seen things like this a few times:

“ The Melon Music Award for Song of the Year is an award presented by Kakao M at the annual Melon Music Awards, using data from Melon's streaming service to present awards to artists who have had exceptional performance during the year. Since 2009, the Song of the Year category has comprised one of the ceremony's daesang (grand prize) awards, alongside Album of the Year, Artist of the Year, and later Record of the Year (the latter was presented for the first time during the 2018 ceremony).

An award for best song was given by Melon from 2005 to 2008, although no traditional live ceremony was held—instead, winners were announced through its website. The ceremony was officially held offline in Seoul starting in 2009, with Song of the Year becoming one of its grand prizes. [...]

”

It only needs a little copyediting to be fine, but it didn't get that copyediting, and still passed, despite, well, the end of the first paragraph repeating in the second, the first sentence kind of jumping subject from the Song of the Year to the Melon Music Awards as a whole half-way through, and a few other things. Just to start off, we could easily rewrite this as:

“ The Melon Music Award for Song of the Year is one of the awards from the annual Melon Music Awards, an event that uses data from Melon's streaming service to celebrate artists who have had exceptional performance during the year.

Award for best song were announced on Melon's website from 2005 to 2008, but live ceremonies began in Seoul starting in 2009, with Song of the Year becoming one of the ceremonies' daesang (grand prize) awards, alongside Album of the Year and Artist of the Year, with Record of the Year being added to this list from the 2018 ceremony on).

”

Notes: I don't know if Kakao M presents all the awards or just this one, because it's unclar in the original. Also, the article on Kakao M states it became defunct in 2021, so the information is probably at least out-of-date now. Also, probably shouldn't bother to mention the other grand prize awards unless we're going to link them, but I left them in here.

Again, the point isn't the specifics, and I don't want to call this article out specifically: I've copyedited it now. The point is that enough lists pass with really convoluted and confusing sentence structures, and that's something that's meant to be fixed before they pass, surely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 05:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 05:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed a drop in the quality of prose reviewing recently, where some of the noms will have glaring errors in the lead and still have several supports. I think it's just a result of FLC being severely backlogged and there only being a few regular reviewers, who are now very overworked and consequently probably do quicker, less thorough reviews. AryKun (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Question

Hi, I was thinking of nominating an article soon, and reviewed a few articles to get a sense of the process, but I was slightly surprised by the length of the backlog. Is this a normal state of affairs? If it isn't, are any measures being taken to reverse the decline? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: It's longer than normal now; we usually have an end-of-year slump in reviewing for some reason. --PresN 21:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: Oh ok. Do you think that the lack of an active WikiCup contributes to the end-of-year slump? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yearly notice

Hello everyone. As is usual for me, the next 2+ months will be filled with work in real life, meaning that I'll have less time for FLC-related activities. I've always been able to keep up-to-date with TFL blurbs and should be able to continue doing so, but my FLC closures and the like may be limited. The FLC community has always picked up the slack in my relative absence and I am confident that you will all do so again. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Good luck with the season, see you when you get back! --PresN 02:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping things running smoothly. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The Core Contest returns!

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

List of plant family names with etymologies

I'll be renaming this featured list soon to List of flowering plant families. Over the last year, this list has become the starting point for, and the de facto parent list for, all the lists in the sidebar (-->). But as a parent list, it kind of sucks, and needs a little love and attention (including a rename). I'm aiming to make the fewest changes I can get away with, but if it feels too drastic, if anyone feels like I need to run the list through WP:FLC a second time after the changes to keep the FL star, please comment on the the list's talk page and I'll try to work something out. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Flowering plant just showed up today at WP:GAN ... that would probably be a better choice as the head article for a featured topic. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Question

Hello all, its been a while since I have brought something to FLC. Quick question, where are we generally with having additional prose in addition to the lead, prior to the list itself? Is there a preference for everything to be wrapped into the lead, or is it ok to have a "History" or "Background" section after the lead, before the list? Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: As long as the list is primarily focused on a list of subjects, presented in whatever manner, then it's fine to have text sections as well. Presuming you're referring to User:Gonzo fan2007/Presidents, I think it's fine for FLC as far as that goes. --PresN 03:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Image for lede

Can there two images be added in the lede of a list article or it's always one image?? Since, list article have just lede and the list in most of the case, adding image beside the list section becomes difficult, can more than one image be added when the lede itself have several paragraphs?? Sometimes its necessary to add more then one image to better represent the subject of the article. Drat8sub (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

There's no strict rule for lead images. If you want to use more than one, try using {{multiple image}}, otherwise they might push down too far past the lead into the article text. Aza24 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Article or a list (if latter, does it have everything needed?)

I noted that the Structure of the British Army in 1939 is huge and needs to be cut down. After a conversation over at MILHIST, I came up with Structure of Aldershot Command in 1939 as a potential way to do that. Ideally, the latter would serve as a basis for a series of similar articles that would then allow the first article to be redone in a more compact and informative format. I created a peer review to get some feedback although, so far, the only comment is that the article is probably best suited as a list (which I agree with). I think, for the most part, the list/article aligns with FLC criteria in general. Can anyone provide some advice and guidance on changes that would need to be made to ensure it does though before going through the formal process?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

When’s the last time an order of battle got promoted at FLC? This looks broadly similar enough that if there’s a modern one it might be worth looking at? Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, List of British armies in World War II is a 2023 FL. (FLs have lots of finicky things in formatting, thus my suggestion to find something modern that meets modern table/accessibility standards. The content is, obviously separate, but scopes, sorting, etc are all tricky and easier to understand off a model list. But they’ve also changed a lot in 10 years.) Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

One of mine! I based the structure one on List of orders of battle for the British 2nd Division, which I successfully put through a FLC review and then modeled other similar articles off of.

But, I do recognize that this is slightly different since it's not just covering the same small formation over a time period, it's a snapshot of a larger one and much more complex one. With what you said in mind, are you recommending something like the below (just to grab the first couple from that section as an example)?

Another question, sorry(!), would be if the title needs to be changed to something like "List of Aldershot Command in September 1939"; I just kept the same formatting as the parent article while testing this out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Services

Aldershot Command's attached services

Royal Army Medical Corps	Location	Ref
1st and 2nd Companies	location for units not identified	Source cited here
A, B, and C Companies (Depot)	location for units not identified	Source cited here

Royal Army Ordnance Corps	Location	Ref
etc.	etc.	Source cited here

Image/source check requests page

I was considering creating a page like this for FLCs, and if there's permission, having it transcluded here. What do you guys think?--NØ 02:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it since I figured it wouldn't do any harm. Anyways, the delegates are fully within their rights to remove it if they want.--NØ 16:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

We already have a source review box at the top of WP:FLC, unlike FAC; we don't need a duplicate one on the talk page. If Giants wants to add a section for image reviews that would be the place to do it, though. Right now, while source reviews are required, the closer often does it themselves, and image reviews are a little more scattershot because we don't have people consistently doing them, so I'm not in favor of adding more bureaucracy and things to keep track of. --PresN 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the current source review box is well placed since I've made several nominations and had never noticed it exists. Consider placing it on the talk page too. Regards.--NØ 18:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Informal Review Request

I have been working to bring List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks up to WP:FLC level once more. It was originally passed in 2007 and had numerous issues (see this version), including dead urls, no inline cites, no accessibility, etc. I feel like it is up to par with current standards now. I am trying to replace some of the existing sources with better sources, but otherwise I think it looks pretty good. Anyone willing to do an informal review and just check to make sure everything generally looks good? Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That time of year...

Hello, my fellow FLC community members. As usual, my busy season in real life is here and will undoubtedly impact my availability to perform certain tasks for the next two months and change. I will keep TFL running with new blurbs, as I have done in previous years, but FLC/FLRC closures from me will become more uncommon. The rest of the FLC closers have done great work picking up my slack in the past and I fully expect that Pres can keep that streak up this year. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all that you and PresN do. Is there any expectation or plans for any new coordinators to reduce the load on PresN a bit? It seems like a lot to place the burden of all the promotions on them. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Input needed: FGTC Reforms – Part 1

Hi all! Input would be appreciated at FGTC Reforms – Part 1. Thanks, Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Questions on header cells in table row

Taking the hypothetical example of "List of governors of Freedonia" (where the available date is Num., Portrait, Term, Name, etc.), I had a few questions from an FL-criteria/table accessibility perspective:

1. Should every table row be required to have a header cell? (when appropriate, as it is in this case with the Name cell at minimum)
2. Can there be more than one header cell? (Num. and Name)
3. Can these cells be separated OR do they have to be clumped together? (Num., Name, Portrait OR Num., Portrait, Name)
4. If there is one header cell, is it ok for it not to be first cell in the row? (Leaving out Num., start with Portrait and then the header cell of Name) -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

From my experience and looking through WP:DTT and the related WCAG techniques, I would say: (1) yes, headers should be used; (2) I believe multiple headers are acceptable (see here); (3) not sure; (4) as far as I know, yes (see here discussing when the headers are not in the first row/column). But I don't really see the point of having redundant headers – the name should be sufficient. I definitely don't think a portrait cell should be used as a header, because (if I understand correctly) a screen reader would read the alt text as a header, which just seems incorrect. I am not an expert on table accessibility, so to anyone who is, please correct me as needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

1) @MPGuy2824: Yes; just like every column has a header, every row should have a header. It doesn't have to be the first cell of the row, as long as it "uniquely identifies" the row, but it looks a little odd to me if it isn't.

2) Multiple headers are acceptable just like they are for column headers, but like in the example at WP:DTT, you do it when the level-1 header has multiple level-2 headers under it. You wouldn't do it if it's not a "group" like that.

3) Not sure what you mean here, but if it's related to #2, they should be next to each other.

4) See #1. Also, agree with RunningTiger123, it doesn't make sense to have a portrait as a header cell as there's no text. --PresN 14:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Your reply to q2 clarifies a lot. Thanks.

Also, it looks like I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest that the portrait column should be a header. I definitely agree with both of you there.

I think I can explain my question #3 using Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University. Here, I think the name column is as important or more important than the Number column. So (assuming h denotes a header column,) the options are

1. No.(h), Image, Name - current situation
2. No.(h), Image, Name(h) - two header columns but they are separated
3. No.(h), Name(h), Image - two header columns but they are joined together
4. No., Name(h), Image OR No., Image, Name(h) - one header column, but it is not the first cell

There are other options too, but they would be too weird IMO. Given what you say above, I would choose either of the options in #4, and that would be my advice to the nominator. If there is a better way, then please tell me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to have a number column, then it should be the header. There's no reason to have two header cells (each row has only 1 cell in each column). You could make the name cell the header, but frankly it looks weird to make a cell in the middle of the row the header, and doubly so if there's a number cell. Ultimately, the goal of the headers is to make it clear to readers (and screen-reader software) what each row is about. Highlighting a cell in the middle of the row is just confusing to sighted readers.

Ultimately, which cell is the header is not dependent on which is the "most important" cell, just which one uniquely identifies the row. Or to put it another way, if the name is more important than the number then why is the name not first? --PresN 03:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

List or article

I just saw that Emirates Cup is featured, but as a list, not an article. This strikes me as exceedingly odd—it is an article on a football competition, and surely should have gone to FAC rather than FLC? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've seen similar things with TV season articles – older promotions tend to be FLs while newer ones tend to be GAs/FAs. I think nowadays this list would go through GAN/FAC, but I think it works as a list, especially since the prose is mostly listing results. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: This reminds me of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of The Office (US TV series), which includes 5 featured lists and a GA. Another example is The X-Files seasons, which, for seasons 1 through 9, are all assessed as good articles. I think there may have, or is, an issue with differentiating what belongs at GAN and what belongs at FLC. Not sure what this would warrant and whether the articles should be nominated for GA re-assessment / demotion based on the grounds of being lists or vice versa, as this is a relatively new situation to me. Another one that fits in with this is Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Adventure Time, which has all the season articles as GAs. There are a lot of season articles that are FLs, so I'm actually even more curious about this now. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Critical Role (campaign two) is up for FL right now, I mentioned in my review that it seemed to be more of an article, but didn't oppose it strictly on that. Just on a quick count, there are 79 season articles that are currently featured lists and 9 that are featured articles. Most of these follow the same or a similar structure, which is set out at MOS:TV. Is there that much difference between Grey's Anatomy (season 17) and The Office (American season 8), that one should be classified as an article and one as a list? TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The guidance at the TV MOS seems to suggest articles focused on multiple episodes should be formatted in a list structure where individual season articles are sub-articles of the main episode list article (see under "Multiple pages"). Their example is List of The O.C. episodes which is a FL (all of its sub-articles focused on seasons are also FLs). But the MOS also suggests including more info for individual seasons than is typical for list articles. So are season articles considered lists because they split from episode list articles? As an aside, the individual campaign (ie. season) articles for Critical Role came about after discussion during the creation of List of Critical Role episodes & concerns around length (WP:SUBARTICLE/MOS:TVSPLIT). I nominated C2 as a FL because I assumed based on FL examples that season articles are list articles. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I've always leaned towards counting them as articles. It's rare, but in some cases season articles are created before a LoE page, in which case it would be impossible to count them as a split of the LoE page. I don't know of any current examples, but I do know of some past ones: Magnum P.I. had five season articles created, but no LoE page until March of last year; Stranger Things was a similar case which had four season articles before a LoE page existed (these links are old ID's to the examples in question). Perhaps this needs a wider discussion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If there is enough detail to justify splitting a season article off from a list of episodes (generally it is expected that there are details on production and reception) then it likely should no longer be a simple list. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If a decision is made for their status as a GA or FL should the season articles that fall in the wrong category be reassessed? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If a season article is delisted as a FL we would probably make it go through GA/FA in the future, but otherwise, I don't think there's a particularly compelling reason to spend time reassessing articles just to move them between FL and GA. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)