Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Archive 2

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

New criterion discussion

Resolved
 – Revised criteria IV implemented
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposals

Usefulness (for lack of a better term)

See also: User:Scorpion0422/State of the FL process

I believe there is a gaping hole in our criteria that has allowed for too many small content forks to slip through and become FLs. I would like to stop this, because I believe such lists hurt the process because users look at them and say "that's all it takes?" The criteria used to contain this:

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

Just to clarify, I am not talking about a length criterion, what I would like is something along the lines of:

  • "A Featured list should be able to function as a standalone list; a list must be long enough or about a subject that justifies an individual page, not be a content fork and not largely recreate material from another article."

Please note that that is just a rough idea of what I want to add, the actual wording of it can be changed. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 12:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't thought much about it, but just one small contribution:

  • "A featured list, in its length and/or topic, is worthy of a standalone list; it is not a content fork and does not largely recreate material from another article."

I haven't revisited the grammar of the other points. Is it consistent, in the indicative ("is")? Tony (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your wording much better than mine. Now the question is: is it too subjective? -- Scorpion0422 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be looked at. The Bloc Party awards list that Scorpion has brought to FLRC is a case in point: the band has won just one award of minor prestige, and failed to win on thirteen other occasions. If the information was presented in text form, it would take one or two paragraphs in the main article. Instead, table formatting - which adds nothing to the presentation through e.g. sortability - is used to display the information for no real reason. However the criteria are re-worded, there needs to be something that puts the onus on the nominator to explain why the information could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. I entirely agree with Scorpion's comments about lists such as this not meriting the accolade of being described as "Wikipedia's best work" and devaluing the currency of Featured Lists generally. I come to the debate from a background of having been the primary contributor to one of the largest, if not the largest, FLs (List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford) which has had 2 FLs and 1 FLC spun out of it and is still over 200kb long. To make the lists comprehensive, I also have to write the sodding articles about the alumni for inclusion in the lists, and so there's a significant amount of work involved quite apart from the lists themselves. So if I sound slightly bitter about these shorter lists that contain little of substance and require comparatively little effort, it's probably because I am! BencherliteTalk 15:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Tony's wording. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't consider myself an FLC-regular and have no interest in helping to change the criteria, I'd like to point out that I absolutely agree with Scorpion0422's assessment that these tiny lists hurt the FLC process and Wikipedia and that the criteria should be changed to prevent these lists from being promoted. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Tony's wording, just one question where is this going in the FL?. Because all the others have a bold one word overview. Is this going to be Cr. 8 or are we going to work it into another criteria, for example make it 3b? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

3b seems the most logical. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Tony's wording of the new criteria. Reywas92Talk 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. Even though i am working on 2 "award for person" lists, i really don't think they are very useful in most cases, and should be merged into the parent article unless there is a specific reason to split them. This i also see a lot for chart lists etc - why do we need lists of number ones by century, decade AND year? People seem to be cutting lists as small as possible to get more and easier FLs. Wanting an easy FL or FT is not a reason to split a list.YobMod 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed length criterion/guideline

Since we're here, I think we should also consider adding in the oft-discussed length limit. I hate unwritten rules because they make areas of Wikipedia too cliquish, i.e., users who don't participate in the featured list processes do not know about the minute details and when they bring six- or seven-item lists to FLC, they are told without prior notice that the list is not eligible. How about something like:

A featured list should not have less than ten items; exceptions must be discussed beforehand on a case-by-case basis.

Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know if I like the idea of having a defined limit. It's good in theory and would be useful, but lists vary so much that a hard limit is difficult. -- Scorpion0422 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think adding a note about the unwritten length rule in FL criteria is helpful.—Chris! ct 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
We don't necessarily need a new criterion, even a footnote would do. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A footnote is probably better; it likely can be put next to the statement Scorpion is proposing above. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It will always be a tug-o-war between specifying and generalising in statutes and regulations. If a 10-item lower limit were specified (I have no idea whether it's viable), it might be expressed with a "hedge" word such as "normally" or "generally"—"normally regarded as at least ...". I'm unsure until I see a proposed text for this. Tony (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have by no means given this wording hours of thought, the only thing I realy though about was whether to word it in the positive or negative. I chose negative (i.e. "less" and "unacceptable"), as I think the positive (i.e. "more" and "acceptable") sounds like every list meeting this "criteria" cannot be opposed on length grounds, but I believe that some 10–15 item lists can still be too short. So here is an intial wording to get the ball rolling. As a footnote how about:

A list should not be too short; generally less than 10 items is unacceptable.

I'm open to constructive criticism (actually it doesn't actually have to be constructive, you can tell me this is rubbish too!). Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 12:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that lists should not be short, but for many lists it should not be a deal-breaker. For example, there are many fine FLs of sport teams head coaches. Some of these lists should not be excluded because a team has only had 8 or 9 coaches so far. I believe that all lists should theoretically be able to become featured, and in many instances length should not prevent that. If a list could never be long enough, then in my opinion it should not be an independent list at all, which ties in with the new criteria above. Reywas92Talk 22:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to make changes at WP:LIST first, then come back here. A rule should be written that denies people creating one-item lists, first. A page like List of Minnesota Wild head coaches makes Wikipedians look stupid. I agree with Reywas saying if a list is not long enough to become featured, then it should not be an independent list at all.--Crzycheetah 05:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that too. Otherwise it's as if we're saying "it's not okay for FL, but it is okay for WP", when more often than not, it's also not okay for WP. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. Should we start a separate section at WT:LIST? Tony (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Proposal to advise against short lists. Feel free to tweak my statement as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, if the guideline is changed, then a new criterion here would be unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a featured list should be with lists with at minimum ten items. However I strongly disagree with a policy or guideline that Wikipedia should delete lists merely due to their size, as this contradicts Wikipedia's featured topic criteria 3 (c) Whereby if a list can be included in a featured topic, even with "their limited subject matter" - less than ten items. This would result in all good and featured topics that must include lists with "limited subject matter" be demoted. This proposed guideline will have detrimental effects on other aspects and they must be properly addressed before this proposed criteria goes ahead. Alex Douglas (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: I agree with the use of the word "generally" or a hard rule in this featured list criteria. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this one though. An unwritten rule allows people to support or oppose on a case by case basis. A hard rule saying "10 minimum" would make "i think this list is too short and would be better merged into something else" a non-actionable oppose for anything over 10.YobMod 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I think if a "hedge" word such as "generally" or "normally" is used, it gives wriggle-room at a deletion page for "Keep" to be argued, provided good reasons for the shortest are forthcoming.
Which criterion would this be, and what would its bolded subheading be? Shouldn't it be tacked on to the one discussed above, as a second clause? I'm unsure, because I'm doing fly-by visits here. And can it be expressed in the positive rather than the negative? Here's something you might want to play with:

*"A featured list, in its length and/or topic, is worthy of a standalone list. It normally contains at least 10 items; it is not a content fork and does not largely recreate material from another article."

Lead sentence proposal

While we're here, I want to address something that has been nagging at me for months. Since the middle of last year, starting lists with "This is a list of X" has been unofficially deprecated. However, there is not explicit mention of this in the criteria; although most editors have changed offending FLCs with no complaint (indeed, some have expressed relief at doing so), I think it is unfair to say that "We don't do things like this anymore" without giving evidence. Currently, Criterion 2 states that "[A featured] list has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject." While this is nice, I don't feel it is specific enough, and it raises the subjective question, what is engaging? I propose that we add a footnote much to the effect of:

A featured list's opening sentence should not be "This is a list of..." or any variations.

Thoughts? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I've been going through all FLs (about halfway through, I haven't been brave enough to touch the sports section) and fixing some minor issues. I'll start fixing some of those occurances too. -- Scorpion0422 02:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If you do, be sure to make a mention of the fact that it was deprecated a year ago; a lot of editors who used to write FLs aren't aware of the change. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we just add this to WP:LEAD somewhere instead? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just found this from WP:LEAD: "Similarly, where an article title is of the type "List of ...", a clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title." Anyway, this proposal has been scrapped. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a list

In the previous version of the criteria, there was an item that had the basic definition of a list. I'm proposing we add something along these lines:

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

Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why "for example"? Is there any other type of list that could ever be eligible for featured status? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed this in all today's comments. Whilst I think it is a good idea in principle, when this was originally part of the criteria it was under a special "Useful" section. I think that actually we would struggle to summarise adequately what a list is, and that the new criteria 3b we are adding, is a our modern approach to adding back in part of that "Useful" criteria. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been previously told that "finite" is not necessary to get a FL. Eg, Lists of alumni, Lists of LGBT people. If finite is a criteria, will not many lists need to be delisted? (Not against it, just wondering).YobMod 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well there must be criteria within the list. Technically, those are lists of notable alumni and notable LGBT people. There are some articles such as List of towers and List of Gothic architecture that seem to have less finite criteria. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was in the old pre-Director criteria, and was highly problematic, at least as then expressed. If this needs to be included at all (and there appears to be doubt above), I'd do this:

  1. A Featured List covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list ; it either:
    • (a) brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; or
    • (b) is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or
    • (c) contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and, where in which the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles.

Proviso: I feel out of my depth, because I'm so rarely here. Tony (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Summaries

Revised criteria I

For those who don't like reading a lot of text, here is a summary of the proposed additions:

Bolded purple text indicates that that sentence is a proposed addition.

A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), no content forking, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not—a featured list has the following attributes:

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. The lead of a featured list should not open with "This is a list of ..." or any variation on this.
  3. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
    • (a) A featured list, in its length and/or topic, is worthy of a standalone list; it is not a content fork and does not largely recreate material from another article.
    • (b) A featured list normally has at least 10 items; exceptions must be discussed before nomination.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text.
  7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
I support all, it benefits FLC.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 03:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I definately support this, but I'm concerned with the wording surrounding "is worthy of a standalone list". How does one determine if a list is "worthy"? A lot of bias can come into play here so there definately needs to be some clarification. What one user may think is justified may not be by another. – Nurmsook! talk... 03:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "meets all standards of stand-alone lists" or something like that? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds slightly too WP:CREEPY. Slightly. I don't think it needs to be said that lists don't need to start with This is a list of.... Articles don't start with This is an article about.... "Engaging" and "professional standards of writing" covers it, IMO. We should link to WP:SAL when mentioning stand-alone lists. "exceptions must be discussed beforehand on a case-by-case basis." This might need elaborating on. Discussed where? WT:FL, WT:FLC or in the actual nomination? Nevertheless, a step in the right direction. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I also don't like 2(a). It annoys me too but this shouldn't be part of the criteria, it deserves at most a footnote. Other changes I support. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 09:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Any way of not mentioning "content fork" twice? Tony (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Simplest way of doing that is to reword that sentence to "...; it does not largely recreate material from another article". — Deckiller 12:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No 2a, just a footnote. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to mention both content forking and recreations because I think they are two seperate problems and should both be addressed. I removed the first mention of content forking. -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised criteria II

A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), no content forking, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not—a featured list has the following attributes:

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, has an appropriate first sentence, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. The lead of a featured list should not open with "This is a list of ..." or any variation on this.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
    • (b) It, in its length and/or topic, meets all standards of stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork and does not largely recreate material from another article.
    • (c) It normally comprises at least 10 items; exceptions must be discussed before nomination.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text.
  7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

Matthewedwards is right, "exceptions must be discussed before nomination" does need elaboration. Where should such issues be discussed? -- Scorpion0422 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WT:FLC makes most sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I added a link to "discussed". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't care for "has an appropriate first sentence," really. There is nothing wrong with criteria 2 currently, and WP:LEAD is already linked in that sentence, I think fiddling around with it is just trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. As before I support the other changes. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm not seeing anything in the discussions above, what is the reason behind the addition of the "content forking" and what are some examples of the problems causing this to be needed. Also why 10? A manga or book list might have 8 or 9 items but be longer than many lists with 10+ because of the basic plot summaries (even brief ones would clutter a main article after 6 volumes or so). Would that mean for any such list, we'd have to come to FLC's talk to get "permission" to list it first? That seems very ehhh to me. I can see saying "recommended/general" but saying "you can't submit" when people can submit outright bad lists without permission just doesn't sit well with me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
How could you not see any mention of content forking in the above discussion? The very first sentence in this new criterion discussion says: "I believe there is a gaping hole in our criteria that has allowed for too many small content forks to slip through and become FLs." -- Scorpion0422 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Some example are here. As for the number 10, it has been an unwritten rule for quite a while. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a mention of exceptions to the rule here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe some of the exceptions should also be listed in the criteria? -- Scorpion0422 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem is that it would be hard to quantify what exactly counts as an exception, WP:COMMONSENSE might have to suffice here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather we scrapped 1c and went back to the unwritten rule, than start listing exceptions to it. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
On that note, if Dabomb's proposed addition to WP:SAL goes through, could we not just scrap 3c and leave it as "meets all standards of stand-alone lists"? -- Scorpion0422 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but if I know style guidelines, it would take a while for the addition to go through. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'd be for that. Writing a "firm" limit into the criteria may cause people problems anyway. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not that we don't have a limit anyway, it's just not mentioned. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Okay, I missed that, but I don't see any discussion beyond that. Looking at the examples, I can't say I like the sorting there. Character lists being called articles when they are still, primarily, lists. I also do not see any valid reason some of the "type E" (i.e. short lists) can't be FLs just because they are short. If they are contain the total sum of items applicable the to list and are appropriate lists, I see no reason to deny it an FL or adding an extra step purely because it has less than some seemingly arbitrary number of items. I also do not see why season episode lists are being called "content forks" when those lists are not only appropriate, but also basically what is being prescribed in the TV MoS where production/reception information is available for each season. I don't think it should be FLCs bound to override a consensus based Manual of Style for seemingly no reason. Now, that said, those two specified to need to have their main lists fixed so they are only transcluded the list, sans leads and summaries, also per the MoS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm getting really tired of explaining this. In my audit, I am only noting very short lists for curiosities sake because I want to know how many there are. I am not going to try to delist them (this is noted at the top as well). I also do not call any season pages content forks. I call them lists that largely recreate the content of another list (in fact, nobody in that page calls them forks). If you aren't going to bother to read things properly, then don't waste our time with these comments. -- Scorpion0422 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised criteria III

This version does not note any of the additions in criteria I that were scrapped in Criteria II.

A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), non-free content and what Wikipedia is not—a featured list has the following attributes:

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, has an appropriate first sentence, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries.
    • (b) It, in its length and/or topic, meets all standards of stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork and does not largely recreate material from another article.
    • (c) It normally comprises at least 10 items; exceptions must be discussed before nomination.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text.
  7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Discussion

Can we move "not a content fork"—or something similar—to the intro of the criteria? This is a general Wikipedia guideline, not some FL-specific issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It has always been covered by "requirements for all Wikipedia content" as general Wiki guideline (we just never acted on it). It fits nicely in 3b and I think duplicating it in the intro is unnecessary. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That's why I said "move". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Tony1 suggested that we not mention content forking twice, and I would rather note it in 3b because it fits better. That way, the criteria clearly covers both forks and re-creations. -- Scorpion0422 22:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I agree. If it was moved to the intro, 3b becomes "empty" (i.e. based on (a proposal at) SAL) and we are effectively just adding two words to the criteria. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I would really appreciate input at WT:SAL, especially on what wording to insert, etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, do either of you have any comments about my #Definition of a list criteria proposal? -- Scorpion0422 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems largely pretty good. Specifying not to include "this is a list of X" is unneeded; that can be added to WP:LEAD. Content fork one is worded fine to me, so 3b works fine. I'd disagree with the removal of 1c. I'd say it would be pretty unfair to a user new to FLC who spends a good chunk of their time working on a nine-item list to have it quick-failed as too short. Unwritten rules are the bane of a properly working system; things that pop up regularly should be codified. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Update The guidelines on lead sentences on lists have been updated, rendering a specific criterion against "This is a list of" unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The new criteria looks good to me.—Chris! ct 23:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, What about the 10 items thing.—Chris! ct 23:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason we are scrapping 1c is because it isn't a set in stone limit. Some 9-item lists will be eligible, so then we had to add "generally" to the criteria. That isn't much help as it still doesn't give a strict guideline, and people requested examples of short eligible lists. Basically it is easier to use WP:COMMONSENSE and treat each case individually. The ones that are too short are usually glaringly obvious, and even if a list does have ten items, in my opinion, it can still be too short. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining.—Chris! ct 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd still add 3c as a friendly hint, or even as a footnote to 3. Perhaps it could be reworded to "It normally comprises at least 10 items; exceptions are granted only in rare cases and must be discussed before nomination." I know that means people will stop by and bug you guys more often, but I think we're better off doing that rather than quick-failing and ruining the experience of a possible great FLC writer. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Query - This seems to me like it'll have a bit of a knock-on impact on the articles the lists have been forked from. Slightly simplifying here but what you guys are saying is that if the article and forked list are both reasonably short, then the two should be merged back into one. Makes sense so far. But then people at WP:GAN and WP:FAC should pick up on this and demand the appropriate unforking. Right? rst20xx (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible, and some input from GAN/FAC regulars would be good, but they're pretty sensible people and I know of plenty of GAs and FAs that have a list of 8, 9, and 10 or so entries. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Support/Opposition

Just to clarify, I have no issues with and support "Revised criteria III". Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The changes to the criteria fully reflect changes that have taken place at FL/FLC since the last criteria revision. Support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I also support "Revised criteria III". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Revised criteria III—Chris! ct 23:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we should wait for users like Tony1 and Matthewedwards to weigh in on cIII before we start supporting or opposing. -- Scorpion0422 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no deadline for when it can start; obviously we wouldn't go on without their opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I support most of this per my earlier post, but I want to continue my earlier discussion too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)
  • I like this too, but I wonder whether it addresses the problem of the unnecessary spin-off list that should be located as part of a main article. Would something like this be better?

..it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article

I looked at WP:SAL but couldn't immediately see anything warning against unnecessary splinter lists, but I may have missed it in my rush. BencherliteTalk 21:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That is the purpose of this proposal. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This revision is pretty good; better than the other two options, I think. As I said in my reply to rst20xx, I'd like to see if someone from the GAN/FAC camps could comment. They may have opinions on it too as to how it affects articles. Bencerlite's extra suggested words merit some consideration, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the second excluded line seems debatable. The first one is a reflection of the general "rule". --Efe (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised criteria IV

I decided to try adding a seperate image criterion based on the one at WP:WIAFA. (It's interesting that they have a length criterion, although I think it's aimed more at keeping them from getting too long)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work. It covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see WP:List) and, in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, living persons, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not) a featured list has the following attributes:

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
    • (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

Fair use images in lists has been a contentious issue, which is why I thought it might be useful to add a criterion about it. Also, I've noticed that FLs are often renamed, and sometimes the title is disputed, so should we throw in a mention of Wikipedia:Naming conventions? -- Scorpion0422 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

These read well. The fair use issue is important but I'm not sure how often we fall foul of it really. Still, worth a mention. As for the naming conventions, yes, definitely we should approach this too. Recently some of the accepted names have been pretty poor (not just the capitalisation of Astronaut, but I'm not keen on things like "Top 10 records (U.S.)" and the like...). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
All of my FL were renamed months after they got promoted (thanks Dabomb!) to have "List of xxx" as the title, so it would definately be good to have this somewhere to inform editors and make it standardised.
Fair use should simply say - being an entry on the list is never sufficient reason to include a fiar use image of something.YobMod 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to state that explicitly as the proposed criteria already links to WP:NFCC, and that clearly explains what does and doesn't qualify as fair use. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I've been vetting promoted FLs for naming errors and such. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Very good. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it. Feels like what the criteria for our best lists should be. In addition to the fork-related changes, I strongly approve the addition of the related article part, as long lists often are not great additions to high-quality pages. I also think the fair-use part is fine as is. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it too. Just one comment, items 3 and 5 should have ; and at the end of sub-item (a) to clarify that it isn't an either/or choice. --JD554 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A naming convention should be added for standalone lists. Recently list of awards have been moved from "List of XXX awards and nominations" to "List of awards and nominations received by XXX". This has been discussed before but there is no naming convention that states it and no user would have an argument saying it should be as such. This has been discussed in WPfilms and WPNaming Conventions films. The other naming problem was that a user was changing all names of awards association from "XXth ... award" to "200X ... award". This also needs to be standardized. I'd suggest creating a Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(lists) or Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(stand-alone lists) guideline, to be followed by all lists creators and include all possible list naming, in all cases and all topics.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists). BencherliteTalk 08:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That would probably be WP:CREEP and isn't necessary, as the List of foo awards and nominations is ambiguous in that foo could be either the name of the award or the recipient. --JD554 (talk) 08:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Good idea with images and naming conventions, too. Our project has had problems with that, specifically inconsistencies with "List of" and "United States" to "US" to "U.S." All were dealt with during the FLC process. --Efe (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Scorpion, I launched in and copy-edited this version: I wouldn't normally do that, and hope you don't mind; it seemed easier than creating a whole new version for display. Please revert anything you don't like. There are a few invisible inline queries.Tony (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Nope I have no problem with that. It looks much better now. In regards to your first note about WP:NOT, I suppose it could be removed, but I like linking to it because of the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a directory" sections. -- Scorpion0422 19:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think that this set of criteria looks great; it's definitely more in line with what's currently expected at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Checklist

A summary of which proposals have been added, based on criteria IV:

  1. Usefulness (for lack of a better term) criteria?  Done
  2. Length criterion/guideline? (Sort of done)
  3. Lead sentence criteria?  Not done
  4. Definition of a list? (a brief mention was added to the beginning, but nothing in depth)
  5. Image criterion?  Done
  6. Naming conventions?  Done

-- Scorpion0422 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Final discussion

Revision IV seems to be pretty well received, are there any changes or additions that could be made to it? I tried out the criteria by reviewing Disturbed discography. I chose it because I would have promoted it last week if not for some minor issues. It works pretty well. My only concern is that 3b might be a tad too subjective, any ideas? -- Scorpion0422 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

3b can always be discussed on a case-by-case basis at the individual FLC. Perhaps something should be said at the WP:VP to get more eyes over here. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe a note could be dropped at WT:FAC as well? -- Scorpion0422 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The new criteria work for me. Per Matthew, we can't prescribe everything, it'd be an arbitrary line drawn in the sand if we did which would constantly be debated. I'm happy to support the proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As per my comment above, I fully support the Revision 4 criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I anticipate much argumentation over interpretation the "no content forks" provision, but I think this proposal is a good one. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I support revision 4.—Chris! ct 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I support this change and would encourage reviewers to go further and make more use of the subjective "exemplifies our very best work" primary criterion to avoid promoting merely good-quality lists. I note that 3b is technically not an actionable oppose (see WP:FLC blurb) as conforming to it may necessitate the deletion or merge of the candidate list. Perhaps we should review whether "actionable" is a desirable constraint for the FL process. I have never believed that all subjects should be capable of FL status and too many unexceptional lists are supported because they pass some technical threshold. Wrt to the extra mentions of policy and guidelines: I'm not opposed to this but take care not to get carried away. All lists are expected to follow guidelines unless they can show good reason to deviate, and to conform to policy. A reviewer may oppose for guideline/policy reasons without them being explicitly mentioned in the FL criteria. Colin°Talk 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I support, but I don't want 3b to be too restictive. As I said before, every article/list should theoretically be able to become featured. If not, then then it should not even exist as a stand-alone list. If articles are to be excluded and even delisted of FL status (Scorpion said there could be 50-75 of those), then we should also consider merging those back to the main article. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

People repeat this "every article/list should theoretically be able to become featured" mantra but I believe it isn't actually supported by practice. There is a gap between the lower threshold of consensus for deletion/merge and the upper threshold of consensus for featured quality. Some (perhaps most) subjects on WP lie somewhere in between with absolutely zero chance of reaching FA/FL. For example, WP:V constrains what we can write in a way that means if the world hasn't published much on the subject, then we can't write much either. Such unloved topics may not be suitable for deletion/merge, but should also not be promoted to FL merely because they conform to policy/guidelines. Colin°Talk 19:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that, but note the theoretically. There is a huge gap there, but I think it should be a little smaller. Many lists can and will not become FL in the foreseeable future, but we should not exclude them simply because of that. Merely conformation should not qualify for FL, but I think more lists should have the chance. There are currently seven lists on hold at WP:FLC that relate to this new criteria. I believe that they should not necessarily be refused FL status simply because they are forks from a main article. I am a mergist, and I believe that if these lists fail, they should be merged back to the main article rather than be told they aren't good enough. We do want only the most exemplary lists, but lists are different from articles, so they are, indeed, easier and tend to be more cookie-cutter. Reywas92Talk 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Reywas I agree that if an article is failed for FL as a content fork then it should also be merged into a parent article. However, we cannot make a nominator merge the list (as we are all volunteers). Now if you want to go and merge all of these content forks you would have my fullest support, but I think that most of us (myself included) do not have the time, patience, or the desire to do it ourselves, so for now rejecting them from FL and maybe sticking on a {{merge}} tag is the best we can do. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 20:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know this is a bit late, but what about adding to 3b something along the lines: "Nominators are urged to ask on WT:FLC before forking an list with the intention of getting it to FL status." NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this. As for FU, FU images are still allowed on wiki and we can't justifiably ban them from FLs, just enforce the rules about it, which is easier said than done as many don't agree on what is and isn't valid FU. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support -- This revised criteria is great and is more enforceable to ensure only the best of Wiki's work becomes featured.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I like the current version of the criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, looks good. Whilst 3(b) includes some subjectivity, so do criteria such as "professional standards of writing", so that's no bar. Good work, people. BencherliteTalk 21:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Query How does 3b work.

  1. Do lists of head coaches of team X get put back into Team X articles?
  2. Does this mean a list of seasons of team X gets put back into a team X article?
  3. Does this mean a lists of winners of event X get put back into event x articles?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. What happens to the discography articles? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the case. If we're talking articles about professional league teams, then in almost all cases, no. In answer to #3, it depends really, but I think most of the current winner list FLs are pretty good. As for discographies, I've always felt that they were more deserving of a split than awards pages because they have more impact on an artists career and are basically more notable. I think most of them are okay. Basically, my biggest concern is the splits where the page is of questionable notability and probably doesn't need to be its own page. This does not apply to all small lists, many are justified. A list of state counties has a place here, but a list of how many Kerrang awards Good Charlotte has won is basically trivia. -- Scorpion0422 22:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I would agree. Using the template we have at WP:HOCKEY as an example: Right now, what I consider the "core" topic is a set of eight or nine articles: The Team article, players, draft picks, seasons, coaches, general managers, awards, records and possibly captains. The first eight all can stand as their own article, while the captains list is a fork of the players list, and should be merged back. All this means, I think, is that for the most part, GM lists wont be featurable (not enough entries), and that for some newer teams, seasons lists wont be either. That doesn't mean they should be merged back, simply that the data set isn't large enough. Not everything can be featured, and there is nothing wrong with that. Resolute 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying the lists at WP:CHIFC are not affected. Is that correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's going on. You don't care about the criteria or improving the process at all, you just want to make sure that you don't lose any of those stars on your user page. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep it chummy, shall we? In all seriousness though, the only Chicago-related list that might have a chance of being merged is List of winners of the Chicago Marathon. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Support I was asking How this would affect the project I oversee. However, I probably am interested in how it affects my own personal list too. So you think all the Marathon list winners might get merged back into marathon articles. I think that is two or three FLs. I guess the policy is O.K. but it just seems like something that we should have been doing all along. Just make sure my project gets notified if it goes up for merging.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - After Tony1's copy-edit, the criteria look even better than when I expressed support above. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support with Comment - Scorpion, are you planning to or have you already started to put together a list of the FLs that you would think may be demoted? I ask because I'm curious which FTs, if any, would be affected (but also generally this would be a very sensible step!) - rst20xx (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He created a detailed list of problem FLs here. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Taking a look through the FTs, the only ones that are in any immediate trouble are Lists of universities in Canada and Canadian election timelines (because many of the lists are not up to current standards). There are a couple of others with concerns (I'm not too thrilled that the list of Office episodes simply transcludes all of the season pages, etc.) but nothing major. -- Scorpion0422 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Hm well with Canadian election timelines, it sounds like those are all issues with the quality of the articles involved, as opposed to any of them not meriting existence, which is interesting. Anyway, thanks, you've clearly thought this through thoroughly, very good work - rst20xx (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • support As far as the number of lists that risk delisting goes, I might suggest offering a period (i.e.: 3 months) before we begin the delisting process, and perhaps have a bot tag articles we identify as requiring upgrading or merging. Resolute 23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know if I like the idea of waiting before delisting. I'm going away in July and I wanted to try to clean up the process as much as possible before then. Maybe a month? -- Scorpion0422 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It's nice to see that most (if not all) of reviewers support, as well. As for the waiting period, I am against it. I think it's time we start discussing each case individually.--Crzycheetah 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
... it won the PLUG awards 2006 Indie Rock Album of the Year.
And that is all. No tables full of failed nominations, no stand-alone lists, and certainly no featured lists. I think the music projects need to get a sense of perspective here.
Can we get this incorporated into the criteria ASAP so the FLRC (and AfDs for that matter) can start. Colin°Talk 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On that note, barring any opposition, the new criteria will be implemented on either Sunday or Monday. So, this is the last call for any comments. -- Scorpion0422 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - One thing that seems to be missing (possibly under Style) is sortability. Since sortability is useful for certain types of list content (e.g., alphabetizing, chronology, sorting by highest or lowest in some category), I would think that a featured list should be required to incorporate sortability for list elements for which sorting would be useful. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sortability is useful, but I don't think it should be required. List types vary so much and with some, having sortable columns just isn't practical. Examples of this include the various television seasons lists (ie. The Simpsons (season 5)) and the Nobel Laureate lists (ie. List of Nobel laureates in Physics). Maybe a mention of it could be thrown in as long as it made it clear that sortability isn't a requirement, ie. "(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, colour and sortability where applicable." -- Scorpion0422 16:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
We already have it in 4. Anyway, the purpose of the criteria is to see a common threshold of quality, not to think of all the good things a list might have. Let's leave further suggestions for another time. Colin°Talk 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Referencing criterion
  • Comment Looking through, we don't actually have a specific criterion for references (although most of the reference-related policies are mentioned in the lead). Should we add one, or is it unnecessary? -- Scorpion0422 16:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary. "meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular ... verifiability, citations, [and] reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons)" is sufficient. If something is not sourced properly, it has no business being recognized as our best work. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, I was thinking that it would be useful to have it as a numbered criterion so that people could say "oppose due to #". Referencing ios extremely important, is just seems odd that we don't have a specific entry for it. -- Scorpion0422 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, if we really must, then we could pretty much copy and merge FA criteria 1c and 2c. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I'd be more impressed by someone saying "oppose because it fails WP:V". It shows the reviewer is familiar with policy and gives the nominator something to read to realise why they got an oppose and what to do to fix it. An article that fails basic policy and guidelines that apply to all articles should not be entered as an FLC. I think we've done enough fiddling for now and personally feel that repeating policy/guidelines is not the purpose of the FL criteria -- they are there to distinguish featured lists from the rules that govern all lists and articles. Wrt 1c/2c, there are aspects of those that are article-specific IMO. For example, "engaging" prose is unlikely within the list format and the new "well researched" / "survey of the literature" that has been added recently to WIAFA is less appropriate for a list, which has a well defined and often limited scope. Colin°Talk 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Concur with Colin. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An idea has wandered into my mind...

Have we at FLC ever considered having "Good lists", a la "Good articles", "Good topics", and "Valued pictures"? It would give a centralized area for reviewing those lists which are more properly daughters of their parent articles (meaning that they aren't content forks), but are currently (and may be for some time) too short to pass FLC criterion 3B? This came to mind after Chrishomingtang suggested to me that I take Commissioner's Trophy (MLB) to good article instead of FL by removing the list of winners and directing elsewhere so that it wouldn't be a content fork. It would allow us to police articles like List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches and then we wouldn't have so many "lists or articles of limited subject matter" at WP:FT. Just a thought; I'm always interested in discussion and discourse. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many times. We have voted against it.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In theory, it might work, but I think that implementing it wouldn't work because of a lack of reviewers and (for lack of a better term) a very vague difference between the two. For example, if the key difference is size or notability, where is the line drawn? Does a list with 9 items becomes a GL, then updates to 10 suddenly qualify to be a FL? With GTs, there is a very clear criteria (minimum 30% FC for FT, everything else is GT) and with articles, it usually is reasonably easy to tell the difference between a GA and FA. Most GAs usually have a long way to go before they become FAs. But with GLs one would expect most of them to basically be of FL quality (if the key difference is size). -- Scorpion0422 21:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Scorpion that is hard to distinguish between GLs or FLs. Commissioner's Trophy (MLB) should be an article anyway IMO since it is about the trophy, not about the teams that won it.—Chris! ct 21:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be possible to define a difference. 3b is only one area where the FL criteria are fairly strict. For example, the issue of full in-line citation of leads vs. general referencing at the end of an article. The bigger problem for me is that I don't think we'd get the reviewers. There's already too few active FL reviewers and look at the near-constant backlog they have at WP:GA. Geraldk (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above re "Good lists". On 3b, I'm of the belief that if a list does not meet 3b, it probably should not be a stand-alone list. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about this as a way to circumvent 3b. I agree with the fact that 3b fails most often ought to be merged somewhere because they're forks. I'm talking about, as I said, something like the really short lists that are truly of "limited subject matter", but are still written at a high-quality level and ought to be reviewed. I mean, should the above Jacksonville list be merged into Jacksonville Jaguars? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Or like List of counties in Delaware, which technically shouldn't be GA because it's a list. Geraldk (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

3b: A review

This is a chance for all editors to comment on criterion 3b and we can decide if any changes are needed. First, my comments:

3b has been in action for just over two months, and we're starting to see some side-effects of it.

  • Unfortunately, 3b is being used as a reason for merge. Some users believe that any list should be capable of becoming an FL, otherwise it shouldn't exist. I disagree with that belief, some are deserving of individual pages but are just too limited to ever become anything more than a stub.
  • It's vague. One (unexpected) casualty of 3b has been the Olympic medal tables. We already have several at FL and they really are fine lists. Most have existed for several years, and a user decided to improve them and bring them to FL. One of my concerns in my state of the process essay was that people were basically creating small forks for the sole purpose of taking them to FLC and my hope was to staunch the flow of borderline-notable forks that were coming in. I may be biased, but I think the Olympic medal tables are above the threshold for notability and qualify for pages. But, then we get back to the theory that any list that can't be a FL should be merged. Which is a problem.
  • It's chased away nominators. In my opinion, the most important job of an editor is improving content. Even if I disagree with the type of list, nominators are just doing what they are supposed to. Since 3b came around, we have seen the number of nominations sink and in May, a mere 28 were promoted (the lowest since June 2007). I've also noticed that some formerly active nominators haven't been around since 3b was passed.

My goal with 3b was to rejuvenate what I felt was a sinking process that was becoming crowded with inferior lists and try to bring some prestige back to the little bronze star. While interest was briefly up, we've since seen several gray areas pop up, especially in regards to length. -- Scorpion0422 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Some responses. I was of course unhappy with the application of 3b to the medals tables. But then, I may have been a little biased, being the nominator of a few. My core issues with 3b are as follows:
  • I think the reason some nominators may have left is not so much because 3b exists but because it's not entirely clear when it applies. I stopped nominating medal tables because I have no idea when the criterion applies to them. 15 entries? 25? 35? If lists are going to be failed because they are 'too short' than there needs to be an objective definition of what too short means. So I would argue that if 3b is kept, there should be a floor defined, perhaps not by number of rows but by number of discrete pieces of information. The GT and FT processes are very specific about their requirements for exactly this reason.
  • If there are lists that are worthy of being independent articles (as judged by other non-FL processes like AFD) but that do not meet the standard of 3b, then I think it is essential that we create a 'good list' process. I mean, there are good articles, good topics, and even an equivalent for pictures. I have concerns about the number of reviewers we'd get, but I think it's manageable if we implement it along the lines of the GA process (with a single reviewer) rather than the GT process (with multiple reviewers).
Geraldk (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Response to Gerald:
  • I tend to agree with you WRT a concrete "floor", but there are some good arguments against it. See #Revised criteria II above and the accompanying discussion.
  • I'm strongly against a "good lists" process. Our content review processes are already stretched, we can't support another. Second, I think that we can all agree that it is much easier to write a featured list than a featured article. "Good lists" would further dilute the perception of featured lists as a head above the rest of Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that before. I think the original proposal to include a 3c as described in that conversation was a good idea. There are, of course, exceptions, and maybe rather than asking permission ahead of time, it should have been suggested that people would need to justify in their nominating statement why they think the list meets FL standards despite violating 3c. It would be entirely possible for us to create a body of precedents allowing, for example, lists of episodes that have in-depth summaries while preventing inclusions of things like, list of the five best years between 2001 and 2005. Most importantly, it reduces the ambiguity of the criteria to only lists under 10 items. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Geraldk. In several FLC, I have seen the 3b criteria being interpreted differently. So I think by clarifying the 3b criteria will be helpful to both reviewers and nominators.—Chris! ct 00:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
When I did closures last week I was kind of pleased that we'd had so few pass in the last two months. I thought that when we were promoting 86, 75, 63 list in a month that something wasn't right. To see 47, 47, and 28 doesn't worry me. Maybe it has chased away nominators, but if the criteria has gotten stricter, that is to be expected. Hopefully they've got the message that FLC isn't an easy ride to a star. Nominators would know not to bring something to FLC that isn't going to pass. It doesn't necessarily mean the process is broken. It should be noted also that there have been a lot of people leaving Wikipedia in the first five months of this year. Maybe we do need to look at the criteria again (we should never let it get stagnant), but I don't want to lower the bar just to get more nominations.
I feel the same about Good lists as Dabomb, although for different reasons. What is a Good list compared to a Featured list? Is the Lede aloowed to be written with minor errors (I pick that because it's really the only prose we have)? Can the list have incorrect or missing entries (a major difference between GA and FA is that a GA doesn't have to be totally comprehensive)? Is it a dumping ground for our short, 3b-failed FLCs? If a page has a good Lede and the list is correct, I would like to think it can be Featured. Do we really want to say "This list of eleven items is a Good list. With regard to Dabomb's comment regarding lack of reviewers, does GAN pull reviewers from FAC? I'm not a participant at either so I really don't know. I wouldn't have a problem reviewing lists at a GL level, but I just don't think there is much of a threshold from List class and Featured list class. By the way, Gerald, the WP:Valued pictures process is up for deletion. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think GAN sucks reviewers from FAC or vice versa; I think both processes suffer from a chronic lack of reviewers—not to mention Featured sound candidates and featured portal candidates, which (in addition to few reviewers) don't get enough exposure. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't want it to be easy to get a list promoted to FL either - I frankly like being challenged by reviewers taking a critical eye to the lists and articles I've worked on. It quite simply makes them better than I could ever do alone. But I think the challenge should lay in making an article comprehensive, well-written, and well-referenced, not so much in guessing if this time 3b will be applied to a list with 30 entries. Also if there's a clear criterion 3c as mentioned above, I don't think a GL would be necessary. Geraldk (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you really think that the 3c criterion is clear? To me, 3c is worse than 3b because it will create the same questions and concerns that 3b is creating now, plus some nominators will disregard the "discussing exceptions" part and say that their list has 10+ items, so it meets the criteria. And we will get back to where we were before all this "commotion" Scorpion created with many "easy made" FLs that really should be sections in their main articles.--Crzycheetah 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I think setting a minimum standard like 10 or 15 or even 20 items is more clear than what we have now. At this point, a nominator has no idea if a medium-range list is going to be opposed for 3b reasons. Some lists with 10 items have been challenged, some reasonably long lists approaching 30 items have been challenged, and some lists shorter than both have been approved. There's no objective criteria or consistency. If we implement a 3c, the debate will at least be reduced to a smaller subset of lists. Geraldk (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
We might want to create a floor limit and then a discretion range, like they have at RfA (can't believe I'm making this analogy). We could say that no FLCs can have below X number of items, and when the list's number is between X and a higher number Y, the reviewers will determine on an individual basis whether the list meets 3b or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(→)Geraldk, take a look at the tables in 1900 Summer Olympics medal table and List of counties in New Jersey. Do you see the difference? Both have 21 items, but the table in the second list is five times longer than the table in the first list. Merging the medal table will be no problem while merging the counties will make it near impossible. That's why the medal table fails the 3b criterion while the county list passes it. As for a floor limit, what number do you guys pick will make no difference whatsoever. We will continue to have these discussions. It doesn't matter how many items there are in the list; what matters is the amount of content. If we have to create a floor limit, we need to come up with minimum amount of content instead. --Crzycheetah 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, that's exactly what I was thinking about that. Here is a more comparable example: A discography of a band that has released 25 studio albums would be in much better shape 3b-wise than an awards list for a band that has received 25 nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Cheetah, again, I disagree that longer means better. I've read some damned good short short stories only a few pages long, and some horrible novels that are 500 pages. As an aside, the only reason the New Jersey county list is five times longer is because of the size of the images. I could add a column of images to the 1900 medal table or make the country flags really big and achieve the exact same effect. It would just look pretty stupid. Each item in each table is a discrete piece of information, and it is just as significant that the US won 14 silver medals in 1900 as it is that Hackensack is the county seat of Bergen County. The county list looks bigger because 'Hackensack' takes more space to write than '14'. Everything else about the tables is at an equal level - the sourcing, the prose, the aesthetics, the clarity of the information. 1900 only fails when people equate bigger with better. What I'm arguing is this: if that's what FLC reviewers want, fine, but then be clear about how big. Otherwise, I have no incentive to put in the extra work to get any lists in the middle range up to FL quality, because there's no way to tell whether someone will say they think it's 'too short'. Which is why I've been focusing on lists like List of Washington Metro stations, where it's impossible for someone to come out of the blue and claim it violates 3b. Geraldk (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Both of these lists are content forks. Content forks are good when the section is long enough to be a separate page, so longer doesn't mean better, it just means that the list can survive on its own. Shorter content forks aren't needed and should be gone back to their main article that's what 3b is about. One negative that I see is that, as you implied, people may start making lists longer by adding unnecessary stuff just so they pass 3b. Still, there are other criteria that can stop these lists from becoming FLs.--Crzycheetah 22:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely against any form of GL for reasons pointed out by both Matthew and Dabomb. I agree there is a grey area but I think it is something we have to accept because 3b will always to some extent be subjective. If we want to compare 20 item lists I would (biasedly?!) say that List of BBC Sports Personality of the Year awards is a lot larger and more what FL is about than 1900 medal table. I am also against a concrete floor, for two reasons. 1) I don't see the benefit because we're not having problems with the very short/sub-10 lists and 2) I cannot definitely say I would oppose all much shorter lists because they may have much more prose, for example television season pages. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, though I think you've come to the wrong conclusion. 3b is entirely subjective. Now, in any process like this some subjectivity is to be expected, but there's more subjective and less subjective, and it makes sense to make the process as objective as possible. Otherwise, there are profound questions raised about the entire FL process. About why, for example, List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada) just passed FLC without so much as a peep about 3b while List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol has barely survived a 3b challenge. Geraldk (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
To your question the only answer I can give is that not all reviewers do every list. Had I reviewed the former list I would have mentioned 3b, and that article is currently at AfD, which means someone is concerned with how short it is. I'm not going to participate in the AfD at the moment because I think we all need to first decide whether all lists judged "worthy of being independent articles" should be able to be featured. I think not, not all articles can become featured or good articles because there may not exist enough information to grow beyond a stub. If there is an obvious parent article I think short lists should be merged. With that Canadian awards list the Canadian Hot 100 is clearly not a sensible place to merge, so should be keep multiple short lists or have them merged together (e.g. List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998). The current AfD seems to suggest people think we should allow these short lists, but that does not necessarily mean they are potentially featurable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Gerald, you brought up two types of lists that I think need some other format than the ones they're using now. I see someone nominated the number-one singles lists to merge with its main article because they're not long enough to survive on their own. I partly agree, I think they're in that gray area right now, but moving them to the main article isn't the solution. I'd like to see a new list created titled List of Hot 100 number-one singles of Canada and list all these songs there.--Crzycheetah 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I advised the AfD nominator along those lines. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that not all lists should be able to become featured. As I've said in previous discussions, List of counties in Delaware is both obviously deserving of an independent list and obviously not material to be featured. Re: Rambo, of course not all reviewers do every list, which is exactly why WIAFL should be less subjective, to create a consistency in scoring. Another teacher metaphor - AP test scorers practice on a series of tests with very specific rubrics before scoring real tests to make sure they apply the standards as consistently as possible. They manage to do this for tens of thousands of tests a year. We should be able to do it for a few dozen lists a month. In any case, here's my proposal, similar to one suggested in the original rewrite...
(b) It, in its length and/or topic, meets all standards of stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork and does not largely recreate material from another article.
(c) It normally comprises at least 10 items; nominators who wish to make a case for an exception should do so in their nomination statement.
Geraldk (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Although it doesn't do much harm I'm going to oppose this for WP:CREEP reasons. Looking through the failed logs I can't see a sub-10 list nominated post-3b and IMO this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Scorpion stated his concerns quite nicely, and they are concerns that a number of us share. You may think my proposal a poor fit in seeking to address them, but then please, for the sake of all that is holy, suggest something better rather than rejecting any compromise out of hand. Geraldk (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a FL contributor, but I have spent a decent amount of time over at Featured Topics. I certainly understand the resistance to any sort of "good list" process, but it seems to me that it would be possible to do what Featured Topics/Good Topics does if the only difference between a good list and a featured list would be the number of entries required. The only difference between FT and GT is in the percentage of featured articles required. As such, GT is really just a subset of FT and they are able to share all of their support pages including the criteria, nominations, removal, and log pages. The only place they are separated out is on their respective main pages where each type of topic is listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know you guys are tired of hearing me, so I'm going make a final statement and proposal about this and leave it be for now. I was not present for the original discussion that changed WIAFL, but I have a number of concerns about it and this situation:
    • First and foremost, FLC is not a policy-making body. 3b is being used to promote a mergist agenda in wikipedia's lists, and I think the nature of its construction and its ambiguity makes this inevitable. The discussion that created it referenced and was premised on a discussion at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that never came to fruition. For those of you who think there are too many content fork lists - the appropriate way to deal with that is in the MOS and related guidelines, not in the FL criteria.
    • Reading back through the discussion at the time of the change, I can't see where there was a consensus to eliminate the 10-item rule. One or two commenters didn't like it, but not a consensus. Given that, I can't understand why it was abandoned in the first place.
    • Eliminating the ten item 'rule' (or rather not incorporating it into criterion 3 in some way) has effectively meant that an editor can claim any list of any length is a content fork, making our standards increasingly unclear to editors, and therefore making our process increasingly something they will avoid. FL exists to help encourage editors to improve wikipedia's lists. But we've made the process so unclear and arbitrary that many (including quite frankly me) increasingly don't want to participate. If that continues, then we will fail in our mission.
    • Because 3b is subjective, and different nominations are reviewed by different editors, it allows for an unacceptable level of subjectivity in the application of standards.
    • I am disturbed that a number of reviewers here still seem to equate bigger with better. All possible innuendo aside, looking at a list and saying 'that fills the screen more, so it must be good' is a ridiculous criterion for deciding that a list is 'good' or, conversely, that a shorter list is 'bad'.
    • Finally, I just want to explain that the reason I've been so vocal about this is that I really do believe FLC has driven massive improvements in lists on wikipedia. It should. It should drive better referencing and improvements in prose. It should drive improvements in aesthetics and images, stronger and more useful layout, and attempts to make lists as useful as possible to readers. It should not drive people to make lists longer just for the sake of making them longer.
Proposal So here's my last proposal, and I would respectfully ask that people refrain from drive-by opposes without real discussion, which contributes nothing at all. It adds in a reference to an item limit, and excludes language about content forks because content forks already do not meet the standards for stand-alone lists.
(b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. It meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, its topic is discrete and separable from the larger topic to which it belongs, and it is at least 10 items long (exceptions can be made if the nominator provides a justification at the time of nomination).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldk (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 June 2009
I'm very much opposed to an arbitrary "concrete floor" on the number of list items. The current 3b came about from much discussion, revision and finally support. The "10-item rule" was never "eliminated". It never got consensus in the first place. If editors are unsure about whether their list might pass such-and-such a criterion, they can ask on the FLC talk page. Colin°Talk 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As a relatively new FL contributor (been around for about 6 months) I have a few comments. First, I don't mind short lists---so long as they are comprehensive and not breing created to be cherry picked. Does the criteria for the list make sense or did somebody go out of their way to arbitrarily create a category? I don't like the idea of a hard floor. Second, for GL. I am opposed to the notion of GL UNLESS it is as proposed above---that a GL meets all of the requirements of an FL except for the number of articles and is assumed to be promoted/demoted if it crosses that threshold. FL is relatively easy to achieve. A person can write an article and have it promoted to FL inside of 2 weeks, you can't say that about GA or FA. (Granted, getting a GA is easier than an FL, but takes GAC 2 months to review articles.) GL would be an incredibly bad idea UNLESS the only distinction was the number of items on the list.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Red links. A lost criterion

The FL criteria used to say "it has a minimal proportion of red links". This was removed recently after a short discussion that completely failed to gain consensus for this change. We've had "blue links" in the FL criteria practically since they were introduced. It looks awful, makes the list appear an unfinished work, and is the wiki equivalent of a page full of broken 404 links on a website. Arguments that it shouts: "please expand with content" don't wash. Readers come to read and following links. Our featured content is made for reader's benefit, not for editors. Anyway, creating a new page is a scary prospect for any potential editor, whereas adding a sentence or two to a stub is easier. I propose this clause is restored to the end of the "visual appeal". Colin°Talk 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Colin, what do you think of a page like List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation where there are a lot of red links, but the majority of them aren't overly vital (ie. They aren't really even needed in the list)? -- Scorpion0422 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. The list elements are the various national federations so those are the vital links wrt red/blue and I would strongly encourage the editors/project to create stubs for those that are red. The team grid looks more like low-level data than encyclopaedic information. Sporting data bores me to tears. If some of those countries don't actually have an under-18 women's team, for example, then I dislike the format. The bold/non-bold font isn't ideal. The tiny stubs that have been created for a handful of those children's teams don't seem worth the effort. So, visually, it looks incomplete and the presentation isn't as informative as it could be. Colin°Talk 22:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Completely unrelated to your initial discussion, but I think I have a solution to the red link problem with the IIHF list. I'll continue this on your talk page. -- Scorpion0422 23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Not that I was invited into this conversation but I don't like the red links either and I also agree that there should be at least a stub of the article. I think that if the page is going to be at Featured status that it should have all related articles or it looks like its still a work in progress. If they are not notible enough to have their own articles then I recommend they are delinked. That way they don't show up in red. --Kumioko (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Redlinks are especially problematic when dealing with people. Right now the world Series of poker main event is going on and some guy named Leo Wolpert just won a bracelet. Now if I put a link on him indicating that he needs an article, that is a major problem when some engineer named Leo Wolpert gets an article written about him. Many redlinks, especially names, might be linked the wrong article in this type of scenario.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I took a look at the list in question, and currently at least 3 of the people who are linked are not hockey players. The problem with linking names without checking the article and leaving names linked is that names are not propreitary. Any of those names currently linked, might be owned by somebody in a completely unrelated field... thus, I have a real problem with redlinks to people's names. The only time I would accept it, is if the person had intentions to immediately write the article, and then they should create a stub as a place holder. I do not have a poblem with red links going to companies or other entities that are less likely to suffer from mistaken identity.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)OOOps, I should have clicked the link Scropion proved above, I was looking at the wrong FLC, I was looking at 2007 IIHF World Championship rosters.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

New-look Manual of Style

A few weeks ago there was extensive discussion on FAC talk about the vast size, complexity and instability of the Manual of Style, which concerns the FLC process through the operation of its criteria. On reviewing the text of the MoS, I agree that the Manual is much larger than necessary to cover the areas it does: about 20 thousand words. In particular:

  • it is often wordy;
  • it provides more examples than necessary;
  • it lectures around some of its points in a way that is not strictly necessary;
  • it is a little repetitive and disorganised.

As a service to nominators, reviewers and editors at larger, I've created a new, user-friendly version of the MoS that is only 40% of the size of the full version. There are no intended changes in substantive meaning. The new version has the following features:

  1. brevity and directness of language, including the default use of active voice and contractives;
  2. new inline headings for every point, for ease of navigation;
  3. the removal of highly specialised points about numbers and dates, which are treated by MOSNUM;
  4. the removal of a few other sections that appear to be on the fringe, including Blason;
  5. the addition of a Currency section, summarised from MOSNUM.
  6. improvements in structural organisation;
  7. the use of links by asterisk, to reduce clutter.

Any changes to the full MoS as reflected in the new version will be notified here, at the start of each month. Your feedback is welcome on the talk page.Tony (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


"Removing red link hate as a FAC requirement" sync

In a discussion at WT:FAC here, it was determined that removing and limiting red links in featured article candidates was damaging to Wikipedia. Featured articles set the tone for all articles and attempting to hide the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDONE and, in fact, can never be completed, impedes Wikipedia's growth. As featured lists likewise set the tone for all lists it would seem wise to remove the last clause from criteria 5a, "and it has a minimal proportion of red links."

In combing the archives here and at WT:FLC, the clause has been contentious. The arguments for keeping the clause have focused on aesthetics, which is a comparably minor concern and, I would argue, could be better addressed at a project level—I agree a deeper red would look nicer, beta feedback ho! A couple people have also argued that without the links leading anywhere the lists have no intrinsic value, to that I can only say: no. And we're reviewing the actual lists submitted at FLC, not wherever they may or may not lead us. Thoughts? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything said in the above post. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the previous discussion about red links, the argument was that having red links would somehow make a featured list "incomplete". This is flawed logic; a featured list should have a complete ("where practical") set of listed items, but not necessarily all the information about each listed item. The contents of another article should not and do not affect the quality of another. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a much better explanation than my "no", thanks. :) Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Doc Sunshine's point that aesthetics are a secondary concern as well as Dabomb's refutation of the incompleteness argument, and believe that redlinks of plausible topics are essential to the growth of the project, and as such should certainly not be discouraged by a "best practice" set of criteria.  Skomorokh  02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I hate red links entirely. They make an article look unprofessional imo.--WillC 01:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I know this won't address all concerns, but logged-in users do have an option in their Preferences to change the red-link markup. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am absolutely for including red links, particularly where the subject is clearly notable enough for inclusion (see 30 Rock (season 3)). As the above says, Wikipedia is not done, don't hide it. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I am indifferent when it comes to red links.—Chris!c/t 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think redlinks to topics which will likely have articles created are fine. Care should be taken to consider that when making a redlink in an article. I don't think redlinks should be a major factor in Fx discussions, however. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
We should link to notable topics. Period. If that link is red, so be it. De-linking it because it is red is dishonest-- it implies the subject is not notable, and harmful to Wikipedia, in that it does not point out areas that need further work. If you hate red links, blue link them. Dekkappai (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind redlinks at all. As I've said elsewhere before, go ahead and make articles for them, but only if they're actually useful, significant articles with more information and references, not shit-stubs. But the odds are that they're not notable at all. Delink it. Reywas92Talk 03:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Where's the beef? We don't link to non-"notable" subjects. If a non-"notable" subject is linked, yes, de-link it. Crap-stubs? Red-link hate encourages crap-stubs. We shouldn't create crap-stubs about notable subjects, because they encourage people to lazily delete those crap-stubs instead of improving them, thereby deleting an article (crappy though it may be) on a "notable" subject. "odds are that they're not notable at all" Wow. I missed the announcement that Wikipedia had finished covering the sum of human knowledge... I was under the impression it hadn't even scratched the surface yet... Dekkappai (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm very confused by your excessive use of quotation marks. What I mean is that, because some users don't want there to be supposedly ugly redlinks, you should either remove them or make good articles, not crappy stubs just for the sake of turning the link blue. My policy is that if you can't start a new article that's any good or has significant unique information, then don't start it at all. I know from experience that articles on marginally-notable topics, especially those made en masse, do not get expanded. I think we agree that redlinks are okay - don't feel compelled to write them, let someone else who'll actually do a good job. And yes, there are plenty of articles on WP that are not notable at all, especially in the way they've carelessly been written. Reywas92Talk 03:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I use quotes around "notable" when I use it in the Wikipedia sense. Wikipedia's use of the word is different from the English language meaning of the word. "Notable" at Wikipedia means a subject which has an article written well enough that it would pass an AfD. Wikipedia deletes articles on notable subjects every day, because they are not "notable". But I digress... Dekkappai (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

For two reasons, I agree, we should remove the current requirement. Firstly, red links should not be taken as an issue of "visual appeal", they are supposed to look bad. Secondly, minimal usage of red links is already part of the criteria through the Manual of Stlye (see here). The only thing that the current wording of the criteria does is to invite editors to violate the MOS. (Wikipedia:Linking states that "Legitimate red links should not be resolved by simply removing the bracket.") -- But why stop there? I suggest we change the FL-criteria to go farther than the MOS. We should demand links (be they blue or red) to be placed, if their targets are notable, verifiable, and relevant to the context of the list, and to be removed if they are not. (At this point, I suspect, some will argue that we should not drag the question of whether an article should exist into an FLC, but haven't we already crossed that line with criterion 3b?) Goodraise 03:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Demanding that notable subjects be linked-- blue or red-- would be consistent, logical, helpful for the project... Glaring red-links might even encourage the list-maker-- or project associates-- to take a stab at starting good stubs. Which would not be necessary for the completeness of the list itself, but would be good for Wikipedia. Speaking from experience, I started the List of Nikkatsu Roman Porno films a couple years ago-- major studio, major personnel films, so mostly "notable"-- but did not link them simply because I wanted to avoid trouble with the red-link haters. And because of that, those potential film articles have been un-started for a couple years. I'm finally getting around to starting some. But if I'd had those red-links staring at me, I'd have got off my butt a lot sooner than I did. Dekkappai (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Linking is not something that should be mandated. Editors are expected to use common sense; if we were to link every notable article in a list, we'd have a sea of blue. It is pretty clear without explicitly mentioning what should and what should not be linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Aesthetics do matter: they affect readability. Whether we like it or not, the developers in their usual disregard of basic usability chose a disruptive colour for these links. Few readers—who feature much higher on my list of priorities than editors—will know what the hell the red means, and red somehow says "important", not "dead end". It is a bad system. It is particularly injurious to the look and readability of an article when there is a red link in the lead. So, a guideline that says "minimise them" seems fine to me; it doesn't ban them, but says, in practice, reviewers might well ask for a high density of them, in prominent places, to be addressed by either or both unlinking or starting stubs on some. The latter is clearly preferable, and is of great benefit to the project. Is say: if it's worth red-linking, it's worth starting a stub. Tony (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not inferring that aesthetics don't matter at all. You're lucky, my main peeve is orphans—of the typesetting variety, the Annie-type I can take or leave—but I can't see them ever addressing that. If you've got a better colour system, all the mechanisms to implement it are already in place. Anyway, maybe the colour system could use some tinkering but the blue-purple-red scheme has been around for as long as I've been using the Internet and is pretty intuitive. It shouldn't take anyone with a modicum of curiosity more than a minute to figure out. For a list with a couple red links, I disagree with you but I probably wouldn't waste time arguing; however, what if an editor makes a list on an underrepresented area of Wikipedia. What if it lists approximately 250 notable items, yet only a small portion of those items have articles. Is this editor expected to create 100, 200 stubs before this list can be nominated? Should the items be delinked, decreasing the chases any of them will ever get articles? If this editor brought this list to FLC for a pat on the back and maybe to bring a little visibility to this underrepresented subject matter, this editor is doubly pooched. This is what's happening in practice. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get people who say it's better to unlink than redlink, for a FL/FA surely the lack of link is the same as a redlink - if I present a list with 2 blue links and 8 unlinked (but notable) entries it'd be the same as 2 blue & 8 red. Does the criteria really lead to delinking? I haven't really seen this myself but I'm willing to take your guys word for it. And the argument that "the list is incomplete" with redlinks is wrong, the list is the list by itself - even without a single link it should be complete, linking is just icing on the cake.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's through redlinks that I first got involved in Wikipedia. I realized when I clicked one that there were volumes of articles still to be created and I signed up for the site; I feel that by taking them away from the site, we're taking away the chance for someone to stumble onto editing like I did. Therefore, I agree with Dabomb in saying that we should link to articles that are notable topics, but haven't been created yet, it seems to be common sense from my perspective. I think though that redlinks should still be used with discretion: there's no need for me to link to every version of Donkey Kong, for example. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the consensus is to remove the "no redlink" criteria, which I'm on board with - we should just encourage submitters to turn them blue, after all if they FLc a list they're usually pretty knowledgable on the subject. Not a rule, an encouragement.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be better to let the discussion carry on for substantially longer that 5 hours before determining that a consensus has been reached - editors need to sleep! Although Tony's argument about aesthetics carries some weight, I feel that WP:RED should apply and agree with the arguments that they encourage other editors to create the necessary articles. --JD554 (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to the change removing the requirement to minimise red links, for the following reasons:

  • Unlike articles, one of a lists purposes is to serve as a navigational aid (see WP:LISTPURP, which is a guideline so is not an aspect we can ignore -- and I suspect many contributors to this discussion have ignored this purpose). I agree that all material on WP should be judged on its own merits--the quality of linked-to articles should have no bearing when judging FA/FL--however a red-link (or no link) fails to serve a navigational purpose. A list that fails to serve as a navigational aid to articles on its list entries, is not an example of "our very best work".
  • WP:NOTFINISHED is just an essay. Our readers don't read the essays, they read and browse the site. As far as our readers are concerned, clinking on a red link gives a 404 message. On a professional website, this would be completely inexcusable. So red-links aren't "professional".
  • Stubs are better than a blank page. It is easier to add to what is there than to come up with something from scratch. Think of all the fancy page features: info boxes, references and standard sections. A beginner has a lot to learn to create an article. So I don't accept the "silly stubs" argument. Even a small stub has a lot in it that only comes from reading lots of guidlines -- article naming rules, categorisation, lead sentence, possible even some references! A stub shows up in a category page; a missing article doesn't (people don't notice what they don't see).
  • I agree with Tony that it looks poor. To our reader, a list with loads of red links looks like an infinished work. Wikipedia as a whole might be unfinished, but our featured content must appear finished. Nobody would accept an FA biography that missed of a chunk of a person's life. A list of links where many were broken should be equally unacceptable.
  • I agree we should encourage turning them blue rather than black. Perhaps the wording can be changed to emphasise the navigational requirement for a list: i.e., the blue links are required rather than that red links are discouraged. Note: I'm not in conflict here with Tony's anti-overlinking crusade.

Colin°Talk 08:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Navigation is only one of three main purposes at WP:LISTPURP, the others being information and development. While development lists by the very nature would be very unlikely to make WP:WIAFL, an informational list (the majority of the ones I see going through WP:FLC) would. A redlink may fail to provide navigation, but the text of the link itself still provides information. While the fact that a page does not exist may not be ideal, it doesn't stop the list itself being of "our very best work". And as long as the redlink complies with WP:RED they should be acceptable. WP:RED even goes so far as to sate, "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles." (my bold, not my italics). --JD554 (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a purpose, lists have an intrinsic value even when red linked. And red links have value also.
  • Because it's an essay does not mean you can ignore it outright. It's there to save someone like me from having to reinvent the wheel by establishing it from the ground up in a discussion like this.
  • Stubs are better than red links, no one is arguing that. What is being argued is that that's beyond the purview of a FLC.
  • When our featured content looks finished, editors follow that lead on non–featured content and Wikipedia's growth is impeded. (And your analogy is flawed. See below.)
  • It's featured list candidates, not featured list and possibly hundreds of other articles candidates.
I don't mean that to sound short but I've already addressed most of these points above so I do mean it to be brief. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between expressing one's opinion and "addressing ... points", which sounds like the matter is settled. Your opinion is that navigation (i.e. following a blue link) should have no bearing on the FL criteria. My opinion is that it should, that it currently does, and that navigation is an important purpose in hyper-linked encyclopaedia, a view that is confirmed by our guidelines on lists. The older FL criteria had clear guidance that we expected a list of existing articles (with exceptions for timelines or certain important lists of non-notable items). Navigation is one of the aspects that distinguishes a list from an article. If we throw this away, we might nearly consider just junking FL and merging into FA. Colin°Talk 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were going to take part in a discussion rather than hit and run. Expressing your opinion is fine, I was just spoiled by Tony who brought something new. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
What? You're the one trying to close-down discussion with your "yeah, yeah, heard it already, addressed it already, move along now" response to my post. Please stop being so rude. Navigation, as a requirement, is "something new" that folk in this discussion are ignoring. Colin°Talk 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. Those are possible purposes, not required purposes. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was initially of the opinion that there should be no restriction as to the amount of redlinks in a particular article, but Tony1's argument is persuasive. I think it's fair to encourage the judicious use of redlinks, but not prohibit them altogether. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That's another point that should be addressed. What is the current restriction? Minimal of course means least possible. That can also be read to mean the most necessary. As it stands, minimum has been said to mean 50% maximum, 1/3 maximum and "definitely not 90%". Shouldn't it mean 100% of the necessary amount? If so, why even include it? And to repeat what I said to Tony, if a list has hundreds of legitimate red links, do you countermand WP:REDLINK and unlink them, reducing the likelihood they'll get articles, or do you expect the nominator to spend months creating stubs before the list can be nominated? Commonsense should be applied when red linking, no question. However, in practice, the criteria is ambiguous and harmful to Wikipedia. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Minimal does not "of course mean least possible". It is a subjective judgement to be made on a case-by-case basis. That is why Tony's wording deliberately sets no value and is not redundant, as you conclude. The criteria are not harmful to Wikipedia. There's two confusions here:
  1. that the featured criteria are the same as (only stricter) the same policy and guidelines we expect from any article, so we need to keep these compatible with what we expect from any article or editing activity.
  2. that the feature process is to give editors "a pat on the back".
The purpose of the featured process is to identify our best work and highlight it (either on the main page or on our feature content pages) for the benefit of our readers. Barnstars are for pats on the back. Our readers could not give a damn if WP:REDLINK thinks the best way to grow the encyclopaedia is to create red links. Our readers want to read and browse articles and links. We don't give out bronze stars just because editors tried their best and followed the guidelines. As far as our readers are concerned, a list (in a hyper-linked encyclopaedia) that has lots of red links, is crap. It is a crap as if Google returned broken links for most of its results. Colin°Talk 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm going by the dictionary definition but, yes, it is interpreted freely by all. That's the problem. Best work + highlight = pat on the back. There's a study illustrating the red links help Wikipedia grow, therefore removing them impedes growth. And please don't put words in the readers' mouths. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to be so upset by folk in interpreting what you are saying, I'll repeat what you said earlier: "What if it lists approximately 250 notable items, yet only a small portion of those items have articles. ... If this editor brought this list to FLC for a pat on the back and maybe to bring a little visibility to this underrepresented subject matter, this editor is doubly pooched. This is what's happening in practice". And that is not a problem IMO. That is very much a good thing. The editor should reconsider what the FL process is for. Colin°Talk 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I support removing the low redlinks requirement. A low number of redlink is nice to have, but it's ridiculous to expect people to turn this or this seas of red into seas of blue to get a shiny star slapped on the article. And before someone starts pointing the obvious, I know these list are not yet near FL status, nor should some of these people or experiments be linked. They are fresh lists and I'm still working on them. But the finalized lists would still have a sizeable number of redlinks today. I would estimate that all at least the U and NA experiments are notable enough get their own articles, and probably half the scientists listed. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Bless you, Colin. Very helpful. And I was trying to avoid the word ridiculous but I cannot think of a better one to describe the situation, Headbomb. Editors not participating in already well covered areas—such as English language, popular culture–related material—are essentially being asked to sit in the corner until they can learn to do their lists with the correctly coloured crayon. If an otherwise featured-quality list with red links were highlighted, it might encourage expanded coverage of a topic that sorely needs it, but because it doesn't have that coverage we can't highlight it to encourage the coverage it needs. It's catch-22! Anyway, FAC has been living with their decision to veto red link opposes for two years now, I'll post a note over there and maybe a regular can let us know how it's worked out for them so far. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, there's no expectation that any given article or list can be featured. If you are unfortunate enough to write an article about someone that few people have published anything about, it is highly unlikely you'll get a biography FA no matter how hard you try. Tough. Similarly, if you choose to produce a list where the list entries are notable but nobody has bothered to write articles yet, then such a list should not be featured -- yet. In the examples Headbomb gave, those would clearly fit under the old criteria of entries not-notable enough to have their own articles. Why are they linked? I think List of Super Proton Synchrotron experiments clearly represents some diligent work and could be a useful resource of information for someone researching the topic. I don't think it should be featured with all those red links. Scientists are notoriously lacking in published bibliographic sources -- I hardly think that all those particle physicists from the 1970s are going to get articles on WP any time soon. Colin°Talk 06:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Colin, no one is talking about biographies. Please stay on topic. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming from FAC. Please encourage red links. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I looked in here again, and I realize, as a lowly article-writer, my opinion at places like this is unwanted. But this deserves a comment: 'Minimal does not "of course mean least possible".' Now I'm not going to talk out my ass, as is common on these rule-making pages. Instead I'm going to quote Dictionary.com: "barely adequate or the least possible Now do we tell the Wiki-rule-makers that they're full of shit, or do we continue making up rules based on nothing but personal opinions pulled out of our arses? God damn it I hate that this is the way Wikipedia governs itself: A bunch of self-important jackasses just here to tell other people what to do, spouting off about things they know nothing about. Happy editing to you all. Dekkappai (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning. Yes, I could have phrased that response better. It was the "of course" bit I objected to. Words do not just have one meaning. Having a FLC saying "least possible" would simply cause endless arguments over what was possible and whether it is possible to entirely eliminate red links. So, to use Doctor Sunshine's favourite word, that interpretation would be "ridiculous". The word "minimal" can also mean "very small in amount". We are simply asking for a subjective judgement that the number of red links is "small" and not harmful to the overall appearance and purpose of the list.
Our criteria for featured content is based on what determines a great article or list for the reader's point of view. Too many people here seem to be concerned that some rule might hurt editors feelings if they are stuck with a list that might not meet the grade. Hey, there are plenty other subjects! Get over it. Colin°Talk 06:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Painting me as a villain and misrepresenting everything I've said isn't helping your case, Colin. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

In order to avoid confusion the title of this discussion needs to be changed. We are not talking about FAC! We are talking about FLC, where lists and timelines are involved. I am a supporter of this criterion, so I'll offer my opinion here:

  1. If the word "minimal" bothers anyone, we can always change it to "1/3". Don't waste hours to discuss one word.
  2. The criterion does not imply that editors need to delink all red links. What it actually implies is that by the time the list is ready for the FLC (please note it's F.L.C. and NOT F.A.C.), it should be known what items are notable and non-notable. The non-notable items need to be delinked and the notable ones need to be created to offer the readers more information.
  3. Some users in this discussion think we're talking about the redlinks in the whole Wikipedia and are upset that we need to get rid of them. It is not true! This discussion is about the redlinks in the lists that are ready for the WP:FLC.
  4. FAC =/= FLC! A featured article gives the readers information about one subject and all the red links there (if they have any..I have never seen any FA with more than half of its links red) are secondary. Comparing this discussion to the FAC process is ridiculous. A featured list lists more than 10 items and all of these items are primary, main, most important and any other synonym; therefore, at least most of these links need to be available to the readers for the list to be considered complete, featured and Wikipedia's best work.

--Cheetah (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary cut-offs are generally frowned-on on WP so changing it to "1/3" would not be good IMO. For example, it is hard to justify a list of 10 items having any red links. There is nothing wrong with "minimal". We have FLC reviews by humans, not algorithms. I agree about your other points about the FA comparison. Colin°Talk 06:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Small point first, we're in the discussion phase now, we're not casting any supports or opposes. Now is the time to share thoughts and see if we can find any common ground.
For example, I think I finally see the disconnect here. If I'm reading you correctly, you understand that red links are helpful and good but think featured lists should be an exception to that rule. As David Gerard pointed out at the WT:FAC discussion, featured content sets the tone for the entire project. It works similarly all over, if you're writing a book or designing a house, most people look to what's been done before, especially works by famed authors and architects in this example. You've reviewed a number of FLCs, you've probably noticed that most candidates follow similar molds as they've been based on FLs. When featured lists look finished, regular lists are modeled in that same light and therein the trouble begins. You don't want things to look "unfinished", that's natural, that's one of the ways Wikipedia gets new editors.
Colin brought up WP:LISTPURP. I think it explains the value of lists beyond simple navigation pretty well. Also, you mentioned you don't want to waste time, let's not waste time with the subject header. Everyone knows where we are and what we're discussing.
Hey, Colin, we agree on something! Arbitrary cut-offs are a bad idea. Unfortunately, people are interpreting "minimal" variously and arbitrarily. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
We also agree that featured content sets the tone for what to aspire to. However, that doesn't mean we must lower the featured criteria to the level that is acceptable (or even, encouraged) for other content. We encourage editors to write, even if they aren't experts at English prose or have read the MOS. We demand editors source their material, even if all they can manage is a bare URL. We love it if folk add photos even if they they aren't perfectly exposed, focussed, composed. We like people to write articles in order to turn red links blue, and we discourage people from creating redlinks if no such page is likely. WP:LIST has navigation as one of the "three main purposes" of a list. Our readers expect it. Weakening FLC to enable more pats on the back, or encouraging editors towards filling-out some topic, is tail-wagging-the-dog. Those might be side-effects of getting featured. Once you consider Feature Content from the reader's POV, a non-minimal set of redlinks is really inexcusable in "our best content". Colin°Talk 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Going by the study, red links strengthen. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
In response to your last point, Crzycheetah, I offer you this comment I made yesterday. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not something I take into account often in my reviews. As long as the entire list isn't a sea of red, I'm more concerned about whether it is complete, formatted well, and has a good lead. As long as words like "minimal" are included in content criteria, there are always going to be arguments like this. Wish the lack of FLC image reviews received half as much discussion. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheeta's second point is one of the best points made here, notable subjects SHOULD be redlinked no matter what, otherwise we're just doing this for the bronze stars and not to actually improve the articles. And while a "set in stone" limit may be bad there should be some kind of guideline if it's kept as a rule - it cannot be open to too much interpretation or we'll end up with a discussion or a de-linking any time there are more than 3 red links on a list.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  16:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right on. Let me just add some practical examples of how this criteria is being used: in the archives, here and in FLCs Cheetah has said minimal is 1/3—he's the only one I've seen use that number. Also in the archives and in FLCs, a couple people have said it's 50%—"uncontroversially" at my own FLC. Going by the dictionary definition, minimal can literally be any number (What's the minimal number of steps one can take walking from New York to Huston? What's the minimal number of licks to get to the centre of a Tootsie Pop?) We already have WP:REDLINK, which limits them to contextual, notable items, and covers the issue clearly without encouraging any harmful follow thorough. By all means, raise the guideline in a review, but we can't be expected to spell out every guideline in the criteria, and not spelling this one out would allay an issue that need not be controversial, as it has been, that should be simple. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The "minimal number of redlinks" rule is not just concerned with WP:REDLINK. It is the last vestige of our long-standing requirement that lists (with a few exceptions) should serve a navigation purpose. Re: Dabomb87's comment, I agree "The contents of another article should not and do not affect the quality of another". However, the non-existence of a linked-article affects the navigation purpose of a list, which, if it is to be an example of our best work, should not be ignored. How is our reader served by featuring unfinished work? Colin°Talk 21:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, navigability is not a requirement. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not true. Navigability is not only one of the main purposes of a list according to our WP:LIST guideline, it is the opening definition of Stand-alone-list guideline: "Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places." (my emphasis). And, in case it isn't obvious, our guideline WP:LINK opens with "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of an online encyclopedia." As far as our readers are concerned, a "redlink" is a 404. Colin°Talk 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You're confusing purpose with mandate, links with blue links and readers with yourself. You do not speak for all readers, and the readers do not reach a 404 page, they reach a page encouraging them to help build Wikipedia. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. If someone produced a candidate for FL that had zero blue links, it should surely and obviously fail. Navigability is a requirement. It is such an obvious requirement of a hyperlinked encyclopaedia that perhaps folk take it for granted. So when a list comes to FLC, we judge whether it is meeting that purpose. Most lists enumerate articles on WP. They easily meet the purpose. Some lists, such as timelines, are intrinsically less likely to provide links to entries for each time entry, so we accept that the navigation purpose of such lists is reduced, possibly to a similar level we expect from plain articles. Lastly, and less commonly, there are some significant topics where the entries of the list are plainly non-notable. We don't expect such lists to have links-per-entry but they'd better be jolly special information resources to meet FL, because they are relying on their "information" purpose to compensate for the reduced "navigation" purpose.
  2. Sure I confuse links with blue links. So do our readers. BTW, not everyone reads WP via the WP website. If you read via one of the hundreds of mirrors or users of WP content, such as Answers.com, then redlinks are turned black (no link). Does a redlink take the reader to content that satisfies their desire to learn more -- no. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to be an information resource. Only an absolutely tiny fraction of our readers ever consider adding content.
  3. I'm not confusing readers with myself. I am trying to be their advocate in this discussion. Many of the arguments put forward for allowing lots of redlinks in a featured article concern editors or WP article development. Those are not concerns of our readers.
  4. Readers quickly learn not to click on redlinks (or can't in a Mirror), as they know it doesn't lead to information. A message that tells the web-browser-reader that the link they followed went to a page that does not exist, is a 404. Wikipedia's standard 404 page contains an edit box nicely asking the reader to supply content for a new page. By and large, they don't.
Colin°Talk 11:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
These tangents are not useful to the discussion. The guidelines you're talking about are for all lists, a hypothetical list of items which are not notable on their own or don't yet have articles won't be navigable but likely matches at least one of the other two main purposes. Red links on answers.com are black—well you learn something useless everyday! A tiny fraction of users consider adding content but, fewer would still if it weren't for red links. You cannot speak for readers. Put yourself in their shoes, fine, we're all doing that, but you are stating your own opinion as if it was that of the readers' and that's false and unhelpful. Here's an example: "I believe that helping Wikipedia grow benefits everyone, readers and editors alike." That's good. "Readers don't care about red or blue." How could I know that definitively without a study? Anyway, back on topic, here's something I'd like to know: you haven't indicated either way whether you agree with the study, in that red links are beneficial to Wikipedia's growth. Yes or no. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Doctor Sunshine, I agree that red links should not be considered in the FL criteria, but Colin's arguments do have merit; I think you're slightly misinterpreting what he's saying. He's saying that if a list has a significant proportion of red links, that's fine and dandy, but it would not qualify as "our best work" (i.e. featured list). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Create a list full of red links if you like. Just don't expect us to showcase it on the featured content pages. Colin°Talk 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that's an interesting point—if I'm reading you right. Is it "our best work" as it relates to the project overall or as it relates to one specific page? Is FLC judging an overall topic or only the list on its own merits. That's a distinction worth making. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
An example, with and without redlinks

This may, or may not, help the discussion. Personally, I don't think that the redlinked version could possibly be called an example of Wikipedia's best work. BencherliteTalk 13:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bencherlite, for producing that example. That's such an excellent FL, I'm sorry I missed out on supporting it. I liked Tony's "more please" comment. I fully agree with you that the redlinked version shouldn't be featured despite the obvious qualities. The final version is just an order of magnitude better as an hyperlinked information resource. (And I note the linked articles aren't "silly stubs" but formatted, informative and sourced mini-bios.) Great work, that was driven by the desire to eliminate redlinks, and not rush to get a bronze star. Colin°Talk 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, a visual cue can't hurt. However, your argument assumes that red links are bad when the only thing everyone seems to agree on (with one possible exception) is that red links are beneficial and are proven to help Wikipedia grow. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, again the argument isn't that redlinks are bad. Only that they are a sign of unfinished work. Like scaffolding round a building isn't bad but you wouldn't go and admire it and publish photographs of it. Redlinks are beneficial and help Wikipedia grow in the same way as the message "This article is a stub. Please help Wikipedia by expanding it." I wouldn't expect that message on featured content but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Colin°Talk 21:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Not in the same way as a stub. There's a distinction, one that FAC realized two years ago. One that you, too, realize as you're not arguing for a red link ban. We're arguing about how "minimal" is being interpreted, what's most beneficial to the project and what falls within the scope of FLC. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The latter point (what falls within the scope of FLC) is the really key one and brings my to a nutshell of my opinion:
  • "Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer. These are the articles, pictures, and other contributions that showcase the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Wikipedia." (source: Portal:Featured content, my emphasis).
  • As a corollary, it is not the purpose of featured content to highlight areas that remain a work-in-progress, nor is its mission to help grow and improve the encyclopaedia (although the latter may be a welcome side-effect). That is the job of the Wikipedia:Community portal, and it does a fine job.
Colin°Talk 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Red links cannot be polished in a list, that work must be done elsewhere. The hypothetical actual, physical list requires no more editing. And is featured content highlighting an area or that specific item? If it's the area (it's not) a stub listing the exact same information in the list (i.e., blank is a thing made by blank) adds no more value than a red link. It may look more "finished" but it's not. It's disguising the fact that Wikipedia is not done and, as a side-detriment, slows Wikipedia's growth. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm fine with with the redlinked version of that list. It's not as pretty as a list with the blue links, but the value of the list and the presentation is the same. We're judging the list itself, not the related articles. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I think the two camps in this discussion have reached a stalemate. One camp thinks "polished result/Wikipedia's finest" means few red links and the other camp either don't mind redlinks or think that showcasing unfinished work is actually to WP's benefit. There are six longstanding FLC contributors opposed to this change (WrestlingLover(WillC), Tony1, Colin, Juliancolton, CrzyCheetah, Bencherlite). Minimising redlinks has been part of the FLC since the begining. I don't see consensus for change. Colin°Talk 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Juliancolton committed himself to any one side; he made a more general statement. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
For a second I thought we may have reached the end but then I realized we'd arrived back where we started. Nice recap. It's hard to believe that you're still talking down to other side when your argument centres around aesthetics—which I respect but are subjective—and you approach a practice that benefits Wikipedia as if it were nuclear sludge: NIMBY, that's P:FC's job. Anyway, there are more people for removing the criteria than against it and I'm sorry to say I don't see why regulars' opinions should be given any more weight. That said, three days is a little on the short side, I'm sure there are interested parties who've taken a long weekend and not even seen this discussion yet. I'll try my hand at briefly summarizing the arguments fer and agin' and open a request for comments tonight or tomorrow:
[Edit: summary moved to RfC below]
Is everyone okay with that summary? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Well if I was on the pro-removal camp I'd be unhappy with your summary. Point one is irrelevant even if you keep repeating it ("this is a stub" messages also help WP grow but dont' belong at FL). Point two is opinion without any proof and actually Bencherlite's experience suggests the opposite. Point three is irrelevant as lists have a navigation purpose that articles don't (supported by our guidelines on lists). Point four is bizarre. Perhaps we should drop WP:V as that would prevent bias against listcruft. Nobody is suggesting we delink notable articles. Time is irrelevant for FL (I'd like to see that "but it would take me months" argument at FA :-). Point five is the only one I give merit to, and we differ on that opinion. Point six is unfair as "subjective" would be a better adjective. I have no problem with subjective criteria when humans are involved. Point seven says "encouraged". I don't see many people suggesting that increasing redlinks at FL is a good thing.
You characterise my summary as aesthetics, which is Tony's point. Navigability is not an aesthetic aspect. We don't vote on WP so counting one side's numbers against the other won't work as majority voting doesn't count. We aren't starting with a blank sheet of paper here. You need consensus to change existing criteria, especially long-standing ones. As long as there are a good number of folk disagree, you don't have it.
I suggest you and I shut up for a few days. I'd like to hear from the FL directors and leave it for them to close. Colin°Talk 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Colin, I didn't ask if you agree with or understand the points, I asked if this accurately and briefly sums up the arguments made thus far. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot you were in charge. Colin°Talk 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you reminded me of another point, so, thanks. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Was that the "stub creation is harmful" point? That's an own-goal if ever there was one. That's the first time I've seen an argument that writing content for Wikipedia is actually harmful to Wikipedia (because it makes it look less unfinished). I'm going to take my own advice and take a break from this before the debate deteriorates further. Colin°Talk 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. These arguments are all covered above, this list is only an aid to help people who are newly joining the debate from RfC, as wading through the entire discussion may be intimidating to some. It doesn't have to be perfect, they can read in detail everything that was said above, it's just an attempt at a summary. As you seem to be reasonably happy with how I've summed up your side, and I'm reasonably happy with mine, let us both be reasonably happy together. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of minimal red link criteria in 5a

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured list criteria 5a includes the clause "and it has a minimal proportion of red links." This clause has been contentious, as testified by multiple discussions on this page, in the archives of WT:FL? and WT:FLC and in various FLCs. It's also been removed and re-added a number of times. WP:Featured article candidates put an end to red link opposes two years ago, should WP:Featured list candidates do the same? Is the clause clear and does it benefit the project? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Below is a summary of the arguments raised thus far:

The last thing I want to add is a practical example, as we've been mainly dealing in abstracts. Personally, red, blue, black, as long as it's done intelligently I'm not going to oppose a list based on the colour of its links. I interpreted "minimal" as "least necessary" meaning all notable, contextual red links should remain. In my experience at FLC, most people seem to follow that.[1] However, two favoured the "small amount" reading and I was asked to reduce the red links by half by one reviewer,[2] and to stubify the ~250 films by Cheetah who subscribes to a 1/3 limit.[3] Which reading do I follow? Futher, if I delink them I'm risking more opposes for countermanding WP:REDLINK. If I were gung ho about stubifying them I predict that it would take me about 2, 3 months to complete the task, excepting the fact that the stubs would be completely redundant to the list. Unfortunately, I'm not gung ho. Bright blue links don't seem especially more attractive than bright red links to me, and I think FLC should concern itself with the submitted list and not hundreds of other articles. (Further cases may be found in the FLC logs.) So, how do we deal with troublemakers like me and what's to be done with this clause? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with redlinks staying for years, as there is nothing that guarantees that all needed articles for WP should be written immediately. We'd like the results of a spaceprobe we launch to be available in under 10 years (see New Horizons), but that's not true of all projects in life. Nor is WP one of them.

In all practically, though, knowing how many people there are out there with shorter horizons of attention, I think the redlink problem could most usefully and quickly be solved by changing the default color they are presented as, to green. Red has long signalled blood and anger and (thus) emergency and STOP NOW, and you can't just waive those associations away by telling people they don't mean this on WP. Yes, I know each reader can change to "?" and you could even make that default, because most will NOT. They'll continue to look at red and be bothered by it. This is a combination software AND policy problem. It would have to be changed by concensus followed by a formal request to WMF to have MediaWiki set to some other unlinked color. SBHarris 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The criterion works well to minimise the density/number of red links, without banning them. The aesthetic issues are listed above. Encouraging nominators to make stubs out of at least a few of the links that are initially red has to be a good thing for the project. Tony (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The example at User:Bencherlite/FLC redlink example is a strong one: all those red links make for a featured list that has real usability problems. Featured lists are fundamentally different from featured articles, and having too many red links affects FLs more, so it's not necessarily the case that the guidelines for the two should be the same with respect to red links. Eubulides (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See my comments regarding the same summary posted earlier. The "pro-removal" summary largly contains conjecture or irrelevant statments. In addition the "stubs are harmful" reason is the first time I've seen an argument that writing content for Wikipedia is actually harmful to Wikipedia (because it makes it look less unfinished). My rationale for minimising redlinks is that
    • Navigation is an additional purpose that lists have over articles (see WP:LIST). Redlinks do not navigate to content (though I accept the actual content of linked articles should be irrelevant for assessment purposes).
    • "Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer. These are the articles, pictures, and other contributions that showcase the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Wikipedia." (source: Portal:Featured content, my emphasis).
    • As a corollary, it is not the purpose of featured content to highlight areas that remain a work-in-progress, nor is its mission to help grow and improve the encyclopaedia (although the latter may be a welcome side-effect). That is the job of the Wikipedia:Community portal, and it does a fine job.
Bencherlite's example is convincing despite the list itself being one of the best FLs I've seen in a long while. Colin°Talk 09:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were going to take your own advise? "Stubs are harmful" is another one of your disturbingly frequent misrepresentations of my comments. Red link depreciation is harmful. Requiring featured list writers to spend months creating massive amounts of peripheral stubs when they're better suited to creating good and featured content is ridiculous. You have indeed seen these arguments above. Plus, you've seen the BLP concern a few sections up. Do you really need proof that featured lists influence other lists? I hereby swear that I have modeled lists after featured lists. We can start a poll but if you're an FLC regular you must have noticed this by now. I'm happy to answer any other concerns you may have but I'd appreciate a touch less hostility. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion got rebooted by this RFC, I could hardly refuse to comment. Since you think I've misunderstood/misrepresented your comments
  1. Could you please explain what you meant by "Stub creation subjectively "polishes" a list but disguises the fact that Wikipedia is not done and the area needs more coverage"? In what way is that not an anti-stub position?
  2. By "Red link depreciation", I assume you mean encouraging editors to turn most of the redlinks into bluelinks (because nobody is advocating delinking if the subject is notable enough to deserve an article and the link is relevant). If that assumption is right, in what way is that "harmful"?
  3. In what way is having editors "create massive amounts of peripheral stubs" (on the rare occasion they are working on an area of WP so weak it has few articles) a "ridiculous" idea. Did you think Bencherlite was wasting his time, or (worse) harming Wikipedia by creating all those stubs?
  4. We all agree FLs inspire and influence other lists. In what way is Bencherlite's actual FL not more inspiring and a better influence than Bencherlite's red-link version?
  5. Why shouldn't FL sometimes require "a few months work"? FAs don't get knocked up overnight.
Colin°Talk 21:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Tony, for one, is still advocating delinking. I'm happy that most see the value in not delinking notable, contextual items, however. Everything else I'll cover in my responses below—except number four which is begging the question, no? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(a) "Mass stub creation may require months of nominator's time elsewhere for superficial results in the list, may create BLP concerns" and (b) "Stub creation subjectively "polishes" a list but disguises the fact that Wikipedia is not done and the area needs more coverage" are both poor arguments. (a) The list improvements are not just superficial; the resulting improvement in the coverage of the articles in the list is certainly not trivial; BLP concerns can be dealt with through normal methods and is a red herring; it may take time to create the articles (I of all people should know) but there is no deadline, no rush to give any list a bronze star) and if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well. (b) I fail to see how improving the content of Wikipedia through creation of linked articles is merely a subjective improvement in the list, as opposed to an improvement in the scope of Wikipedia generally as well as an objective improvement in the quality of the list through the increased ability to navigate through related articles. BencherliteTalk 12:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
First, your edit summary said "poor arguments". Let's not get off on the wrong foot the same way Colin and I did. Remember, your arguments haven't convinced me, either. The idea that bright blue is any less "distracting" or "unprofessional" than bright red is subjective—I believe that Sbharris is absolutely right in that this wouldn't even be an issue if a less visceral colour had been chosen but maybe you differ. If you want to create the stubs, no one's stopping you, but arguments against mass stub creation are hardly a new phenomena. In any event, it sets up a major and unnecessary obstacle for some editors and, as I hadn't spelled this out explicitly before and it's important, allow me to continue below... Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As for "stubs are not harmful", imagine that section "United Kingdom" of "List of foo metal bands" contained the blue link "* Bar Baz Quux (2009)", you followed it, and you found a one-sentence article reading "Bar Baz Quux are a British foo metal band, established in 2009." You'd be quite frustrated, as you'd learn nothing you didn't know before following the link. If the link were red, you wouldn't have followed it in the first place. (Things like this actually happened to me, though I don't remember the articles in question. If I had known of {{db-a7}} back then, I'd have immediately tagged such articles.) And fluffy-ifing text so that it's two paragraphs while still giving the same amount of information is no better. As for "red links are ugly", the red-question-mark-at-the-end format used to be the default, so whoever changed that disagree (although I would have made them dark green rather than red).
  • Yes, my opinion about the proposal: Reword. "Minimal proportion" is way too vague. I'd go with "... at it does not contain red links to items which do not clearly deserve stand-alone articles according the notability guidelines." ___A. di M. 22:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any merit in repeating our basic link guidelines. The purpose of our FL criteria is to to distinguish the best from among those lists and articles that merely comply with the guidelines and policies. What do you think red links get turned into if a reader decides to create the article? A stub. And wouldn't it be a better stub if someone of FL/FA caliber created it? Like Bencherlite's stubs. Colin°Talk 08:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I hesitated to bring it up but I'm now going to drop the B-bomb: namely, bias. I don't think it's a secret that Wikipedia has a focus on recent American coverage. I've worked mostly on film articles, specifically old Japanese films, so let me use these as examples. Let's say I want to do about half a dozen filmographies on Nikkatsu Action actors and directors for FLC. Yujiro Ishihara, Toshio Masuda, those guys. They were all prolific and *ahem* very big in Japan. Let's say I only have 500 or so stubs to create. So, I spend a couple months on the filmographies and six months creating stubs. There are hundreds of editors working of recent American films but only a handful on non-anime Japanese films, this isn't going to come up with Bruce Willis and Steven Spielberg. So, what's gained by my stub-sabbatical? The filmographies "look nicer" according to half a dozen FLC regulars and when you click a link you get "Whatsit is a thing made by that guy who's filmography you were just at" instead of "Wikipedia could use your help". What's lost? A specialized editor spends most of his time creating masses of redundant dictionary definitions instead of substantial and thorough content. FLC loses out on reviewers—as I, at least, review something else whenever I put one of my things up for review. Editors who might otherwise see that an underrepresented area can be ranked among Wikipedia's best work stick to television episode lists and Hollywood filmographies. Readers who might happen on these lists, were they highlighted, never see them. Look, I don't need another bronze star, I got plenty of gold ones in kindergarten. The simple fact is that red was the colour Wikipedia chose—that has to be dealt with on a project wide level. It indicates the status of other articles, not the list. If the content of peripheral stubs is beyond FLC's scope, why should it's existence be any different? If I go out sailing I can navigate anywhere I like but there's no guaranty that there's going to be anything there when I arrive. A stub is generally better than no stub—I see that—but understand that linking stubs to the FLC process is dubious at best. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I had deliberately not investigated your motive for this criteria-change-request, but you've now made it clear: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Takeo Kimura filmography/archive1. Your time on WP would be vastly better spent, IMO, by forming (or using) a Wikiproject to get a group of people to help you create short, good-quality, stubs on all those films. Then you can say Wikipedia covers 500 more Japanese films than it did three months ago. That's far more valuable than worrying about whether a list chock-full of redlinks is or is not feature-quality. You are far more likely to be able to create good articles and coordinate/rally their creation than for us to showcase a list of redlinks and expect our readers to create them at some time in the future. Wouldn't it be wonderful if WP was a decent information resource on that subject? Imagine you'd bought a 600-page book on the subject from Amazon and found when you got it that it contained only the introduction and the index but all 590 pages in between were blank. How many stars would you give it. Wikiprojects are the effective means to improve weak subject-areas, not Featured Content. Colin°Talk 08:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper dictionary and cannot be compared to a book, not a valid argument at all. In essense you're saying "you're boned if you deal with areas of marginal interest", making the FL process about mass appeal, featuring subjects that generally already get plenty of focus. If the subject/subjects of the list is notable and it fullfils the requirement for a list it's less important if there are articles on the other end of the links. I've seen it being said that "a poor stub is better than a red link", stating that the quality doesn't matter, if the quality doesn't matter why does the availability?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're "boned". The purpose of featured content is to "showcase the polished result of the collaborative efforts that drive Wikipedia." If there are topic areas where there's a lack of collaboration or lack of polished results, that's Wikipedia's problem, not the problem of the featured content criteria. The "bias" in the featured content is merely a symptom of the inherant bias among editors and what they spend their time on. This is a tail-wagging-the-dog proposal that we should feature our weaknesses, or make allowances. Lack of serious collaborative effort doesn't just affect obviously marginal topics like Japanese films. For example Wikipedia has no neurologist Wikipedian who is active in writing content. That's a serious hole in a topic area one might expect a serious encyclopeadia to cover well. It will only be solved by attracting specialist editors and coordinating efforts with Wikiprojects. FA/FL is the wrong place to fix this problem. Colin°Talk 11:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And the FLC process would be the only Wikipedia process that discriminates against an article on the basis of OTHER articles, not it's own merit.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not true on two counts: (1) Portal:Featured portals require they are portals to actual content, preferably also featured or high quality. (2) The tense is wrong ("would"). The proposal here is to drop the "minimal redlink" requirement, not to add it, and it this requirement has been in place throughout the four years we've had FLs.
One, portals are not articles. Two, you did not address the actual point here at all. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the folk over at FAC don't think our Featured Lists are articles either. So let's not quibble over semantics. The point is that WP values navigation to content, which is obvious since it is a hyperlinked encyclopaedia. Those blue links count for something! One can position stand-alone lists as somewhere between a normal article and a portal. Colin°Talk 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, not the point. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
So marginal topics like Japan are fucked. Because stubs are worth more than featured lists... It's nice to know where you stand, Colin. I did not ask how you think I can best spend my time but, here's something: three years ago Jimbo Wales said something about shifting our focus from quantity to quality. I'm not sure where he stands on encouraging bias, maybe you should ask. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly quality I want rather than quantity. That's why I don't want the FLC weakened. We have enough cookie-cutter lists getting to FL without lists of redlinks joining them. The quality of WP as a reference-work would be improved by the creation of those dozens or hundreds of stubs by an order of magnitude more than whether or not one list is featured. I really can't understand how removing this criterion would improve the quality of either our featured material, or Wikipedia in general. I don't agree that your marginal list is "fucked". Only that it would be difficult to achieve on your own. Wikipedia's featured content is supposed to highlight our collaborative efforts, so complaining that it seems impossible on your own doesn't work. Many FAs could only have been achieved by collaboration of several editors working together for months. Colin°Talk 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You don't see the harm in bias? A featured list is a stub repository? Think about that a moment. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedians want to write about Simpsons episodes rather than medicine, nature, literature, Japanese films, whatever, what on earth do you think the FL criteria could do about it. Do you think there should be special allowances because some subjects are weak? The featured criteria are about judging the end-result of collaborative activity. They are not about trying to form collaborations in the first place. If you want a "stub repository", set up a wikiproject with those redlinks as a big "to do" list. Drum up some activity on the community portal. Email folk or post on Japanese film web forums that you are looking for volunteers for a WikiProject. If you care about bias leading to little coverage of Japanese films on WP, then you are in a position to do something about it. This proposal won't help one jot.
Do you really believe that by posting a list of redlinks on to our featured content page, that droves of newbie readers are going to come along and finish the job? No, there's going to quickly abandon the "unfinished" list and go off and write some cruft about the latest episode of House they saw. Colin°Talk 08:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've told you what FLC can do. Bias cannot be solved by people in the minority. That's but one misconception here. Please take a look at WP:BIAS and we can come back to that. In the meantime, I answered your questions, I wonder if you can answer some of mine. By the way, I do appreciate that you've taken the time to discuss this despite any frustrations with your attitude or arguments. Here are some of the holes in your arguments as I see it, in number-style:
  1. You're arguing for stub creation, yet the clause limits the number of red links, which implies delink or stubify. Delinking especially encourages red link depreciation. It's a given that, blue or red, all links should be contextual and notable. Why, then, not rephrase to avoid any harmful misunderstanding?
  2. You say that stubs are more valuable than featured lists, but you brought up WP:LISTPURP. It clearly explains the value of lists beyond navigation. Lists are not indexes, they are not disambiguation pages, the contain valuable information in and of themselves. Lists are good, useful things and I cannot believe that an FLC regular does not understand that. Featured content represents quality. Mass stub creation is quantity.
  3. If I click on a red link, it still navigates to the appropriate page, only there's nothing there yet. That's an argument for all links and against delinking. So, the issue is not navigation.
  4. You've argued that the content of a stub is beyond FLC, the stub could contain less information than the list, or misinformation, and it matters not a whit to FLC. Further, you're not arguing that every red link must be stubified, only some, meaning they're not essential. So this issue is not stubs either. The issue is the colour, let's be honest here.
  5. Red is an eye catching colour, somewhat distracting? I can buy that. But unprofessional? Are red sports cars unprofessional? The Chicago Bulls? That's subjective.
  6. You say minimal is clear, but I've given evidence that three different readings—100%, 50% and 33.3%, repeating of course—appeared in one FLC, which stymied the nomination. Here, you've argued for as little as none and I've argued for as many as all red links being retained—and neither reading is wrong by various dictionaries. How is this in any way clear?
  7. I've weighed the pros and cons and based my decision on that. Multiple editors have voiced multiple concerns—including the very serious charge of bias—yet you still insist you don't see anything harmful. For example, there are augments against mass stub creation here and across Wikipedia. And suggesting that I harness the volunteers at WP:JAPAN to create a mass of stubs is... well, you read WP:BIAS and fill in the blank. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) I agree it is unfortunate that our last vestige of a navigation requirement is expressed as a negative statement against the colour of links. I would prefer a positive statement that a valued purpose of a list is to provide navigation to existing articles. Earlier versions of the FLC were closer to that but got complicated when we tried to allow for timelines and for the very few cases where a really good list (both purpose and content) actually enumerated non-notable items.
(2) Some lists contain lots of information for each entry. A list like Takeo Kimura filmography is pretty information-lite. The lead doesn't really contain much that isn't already (or should be) in the short article on Takeo Kimura. The actual list contains three forms of the title, the date and the director. It is hard to argue that the list body is an amazing information resource that we should feature highly. But if it linked to nearly 200 short articles on the films, then I'd be far more impressed.
(3) To say that a redlink "navigates" somewhere is just being devious with words.
(4) A stub that contained less information that a list entry would probably be headed for AfD. But even a few sentences, sourced, categorised, formatted, is quite valuable. If one were to Google for that stub's title, the WP stub would probably be the #1 entry. So that takes the reader into WP, from where he can navigate elsewhere (perhaps via a list).
(5) I'll leave the aesthetics for Tony. Red on WP is the colour of "unfinished", "missing", "don't bother clicking me".
(6) I interpret "minimal" in the context of the list. If other people have a hard mathematical cut-off, that's up to them, but it isn't in the spirit of the criterion. I'd personally be very reluctant to take a list to FL with any red links. I would oppose a short list with any red links, because it would be rather hard to justify not spending that little extra effort to "finish the job", and short lists have to work harder to earn their status as "our very best" in my opinion. With longer lists, I'd balance the content of the list against the fact that one of the list's purposes is diminished by the presence of those redlinks. On a marginal case, I'd not oppose but wouldn't support either.
(7) I don't really see what redlinks have to do with bias, nor what the FLC have to do with fixing any bias. WP:BIAS is a Wikiproject, not a policy page, and doesn't say anything about featured content. What it does encourage people to do is create content. I haven't seen any valid arguments against stub creation (mass or otherwise). The fact that stubs are actively categorised with the intent that their expansion be coordinated, suggests they are an important form of growth on WP. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that discourages their creation. Colin°Talk 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. Well, don't give up so easily. The clause is not written in stone, it can be changed or removed.
  2. Imagine for a second you wanted to know which films Kimura art directed, where can you find that information? Art directors are below the line crew members and aren't always mentioned even in featured articles. I'll give you a hint, there is only one comprehensive filmography in the English language. Guess where it is. Do you see the value in that? Collecting information in one place is extremely valuable, that's actually a founding principle behind Wikipedia.
  3. To say that clicking on a red link doesn't take you anywhere is being devious with logic. Break down your argument: Navigation. Stubs. Colour. Navigation is the process of getting from A to B regardless of what is or isn't there.
  4. Stubs are not reviewed under the FLC process, nor should they be, as I think you agree. Only the effect is being judged, and that is the colours of the links in the list.
  5. That's a valid reading. This is the argument we should be focusing on. This and why, if red means unfinished, why some and not all or none.
  6. I referred to your, and others', interpretations, why would you think I was asking you to repeat yourself? I'm saying it's being interpreted as anything between zero and infinity—and legitimately at that. That's a problem, no?
  7. FLC cannot fix bias either, it can help fight it—without compromising quality in the least, I might add. Please read the page, I promise you it's relevant. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As before there appears to be some English-difficulty at work here. This is the Wikipedia talk page for Featured list criteria. Let's step aside from our personal gut-feelings about what the word "list" means, and see how Dictionary defines it: "a series of names or other items written or printed together in a meaningful grouping or sequence so as to constitute a record". It says nothing here, or in other entries under "List" about a list being invalid unless it is connected to a larger definition of each individual entry on the list. Nor, obviously, does it say anything about the color red. If the list itself is complete and accurate, that is that. And that should be what this project is about. Certain "regulars" ("owner", I believe is the correct Wikipedian term) here seem to want to make "Featured list criteria" into some sort of umbrella project over all Wikipedia projects, demanding that any List brought here be not just a list, but a fully filled-out project. This is insane, of course, and leads to bias, which is, and should be against Wikipedia's goals, even if certain individuals do not mind it. Dekkappai (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay, here are my views on this. I've vaguely followed this discussion but not thoroughly as it is far too long for that. Okay, firstly I think the comparison of red links with FAC is not really feasible. The short of it is, less red links will occur in FACs because of the nature of it being more prose based. Now I'm not against redlinks in lists per se, however when requested at PR/GAN/FLC etc. I have always made stubs (usually more) for the redlinked article. The reason is in order to be redlinked the entity should be notable, and in some cases when the redlinked article is questioned, it is a question of does it need/deserve linking. Basically, is it notable. We assert notability with reliable tertiary sources, and if someone asks us to do that it, we might as well asset it through sourced notable stubs of those articles. Additionally, as a sweeping generalisation, nominators of FLCs are probably more experiences so may write better quality stubs. Also, as previously mentioned, IPs and non-autoconfirmed users can build on stubs, but they (who are the majority of our readers) cannot build on a red link. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but there is one question I'd like to ask the supporters of the criteria, to satisfy my own curiousity: How many readers really use FLs for navigation purposes? Personally, I rarely click on the linked articles in lists; if I want to read a page, I usually just type it in the search box. When I read lists, I'm interested in the material they contain. If I look at List of Stanley Cup champions, for example, I'm trying to find out what team won the Stanley Cup in a given year, not attempting to find articles on all the teams or championship series. Not sure if I'm the only one who does this, but I feel it's worth asking about since it relates to the disputed part of 5a. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't prefer either extreme. Currently the wording flies in the very face of WP:REDLINK. However, a proposal to completely remove it may end up with so many redlinks that it also destroys the purpose of REDLINK. Bsically redinks should follow these rules imo:
    • If the subject could clearly pass notability guidelines, then it should be redlinked
    • The article may be able to pass the notability guidline (and could clearly pass verifiability) and the removal of the redlink could confuse the reader it should be created, FE: 2 people by the same name that have worked in the same general industry, one who has an article and the other who doesn't. FE: Osamu Tezuka and Osamu Tezuka[4].
    • If the article has been deleted before, it should not be linked.陣内Jinnai 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • My point is, the linking (blue or red) or non-linking of an item in a list is not the concern of this particular project, and should not even be mentioned on the criteria page. The list itself should be reviewed here. If the linking of the list does not correctly follow WP:REDLINK, then that is a problem with the list which needs to be fixed. But rules for linking should not have one policy here, and another at other parts of Wikipedia. Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Well lists with almost entirely made of redlinks would actually fail WP:REDLINK#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links. I think the way its done here with the use of "minimal" also violates the broader guideline as well though.陣内Jinnai 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • No-- WP:REDLINK#Avoiding creation of certain types of red links says, "Do not create red links to articles that will never be created." What is being argued here is that red links should not exist at a list--"minimally", "maximally", "mediumly", whatever-- even when they link to articles that could be created, just because certain regulars at this project object to red links. This contradicts Wikipedia:REDLINK#Dealing_with_existing_red_links ("In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article") The discussion for de-linking red-links to notable subjects needs to be brought up at the Red link page. Linking throughout Wikipedia needs a consistent policy, not a separate one for each project based on the personal preferences of the "regulars" at each project. Dekkappai (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
          • And I disagree that it needs to be dealt with there. When there are questions on verifiability we don't have to go and discuss them on their talk page. When there are questions about fair image usage we don't have to discuss it on their talk page. You are corect though that the guideline should be maintained in some constant manner, but as it's a guideline, and not policy, that means ti is more open to interpretation.陣内Jinnai 03:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't think you're following. If an article's sourcing conflicts with Verifiability, yes, we discuss that verifiability at that page. But we don't discuss the need for verifiability on each page. Verifiability is a project-wide concept set up at WP:V. If we want to change some point about Wikipedia's concept of verifiability, that's the page to go to. We don't create make verifiability optional from article to article, project to project. This is what is being done here with respect to Red links. WP:REDLINK states, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". This particular project/set of regulars, has put up a set of criteria that contradicts that. If they disagree with WP:REDLINK, they should have gone to that page to get consensus to see things their way, rather than create a rogue set of criteria. The criteria here should only concern what makes a Featured list. And a List consists of the items and information on that list. The links have nothing to do with it. Dekkappai (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Plausability is open to interpretation. FE:would an article on a product that was announced yesterday but not much of note is known be plausible? What about a piece of media that has had no real-world impact/reception and is 10 years old already? If an article was deleted, is it plausable to be recreated? Because it is a guideline and because it plausability is a flexible term. I don't think FLC's use of "minimal" is correct, but saying it is not an issue is also trying to make REDLINK supercede the process as though it were policy.陣内Jinnai 04:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
                • Fine. We would discuss the plausibility, and the appropriateness of a link in that particular Featured list nomination. But "consensus" at this discussion is not doing that. It is saying, we should not link to notable subjects, period. That is against Wiki-wide usage of links. Whether to link to notable subjects or not-- in general-- is a discussion for a link page, not for a criteria on Lists. But I see we're going in circles here though, which is the reason I avoid these discussions so much... Dekkappai (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree, we're drifting off topic here. Whether something should be linked at all is covered by the Manual of Style (WP:LINK). Actaully, looking at that, it seems WP:REDLINK is part of the Manual of Style, of which the adherence to is already covered by criteria five. So, the criteria is literally contradicting itself. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of going in circles: I already pointed that out at the start of this discussion. (Though some of the arguments that have been brought up since I last commented have caused me to shift from being in favor of the criterion's removal to being undecided. So, perhaps we are not entirely going nowhere...) Goodraise 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoops. To be clear, I was mainly referring to the purposes section and that not being under debate here. The second bit, the irony of the red link section had escaped me the first time. My bad. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole section is misguided and rather suggests some people just aren't getting the point. Where a link to a topic is justified within the list or article text, and that topic is notable enough to deserve or have reasonable hope for an article, then it should remain a link. Nobody is suggesting delinking other than in cases of overlinking. To suggest that because we have guidelines recommending redlinks then we can't discourage them at featured level, is also missing the point. We have guidelines on lots of things that aren't acceptable or expected at featured level. That's because most of WP is a work-in-progress. Our featured content is supposed to showcase the few times when our collaborations produce something that the reader might assume was finished, polished and presentable. Really, this WP:REDLINK argument is like someone trying to claim we should feature stubs because we have guidelines encouraging them. Colin°Talk 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the non-arbitrary subsection header, as it's dismissive and inaccurate. You keep bringing up the word "collaborative" as if featured content requires more than one editor. And that a featured list spotlights every, or any, stub linked from the list. That is misguided. Your analogy is misguided and outlandish. What else from the MoS should FLs be exempt from, in your estimation? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Featured content doesn't absolutely require more than one editor but the excuse that "achieving the criteria for a given article would require more effort than one person would be willing to give" doesn't wash. Wikipedia is a collaborative endevour. Many FAs, for example, could not possibly have been entirely written by one person.
You want an example of other "exemptions" from our policy/guidelines (though they also aren't exemptions). (1) We require an FL to be comprehensive. Nowhere else (other than FA) is there is requirement that an article be essentially complete. Editors are positively encouraged to add what they can to the extent that they can. Perhaps FL sets a bad example and makes editors think they can't possibly hope to contribute to WP if the bar is set so high that they must fully research a topic before editing :-) ? (2) We require an FL to be stable. Nowhere else (other than FA) is there a requirement that big changes be discouraged and editors, well, stop editing quite so much. Perhaps the stability requirement sets a bad example in that it discourages editors from improving articles that are stubs or incorrect :-). Those sound ridiculous. Colin°Talk 10:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood. I said what else in the Manual of Style are featured lists exempt from? Give me some examples. There is nothing that states content must be finished or unfinished or, indeed, that featured content can ever be completely finished. Again, if FLs don't need to follow everything in the MoS, link to some examples. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (2)

Right, from the discussion I've seen there seems to be no consensus to remove this clause from the criteria. I suggest that instead of going round in circles, it would be far more beneficial to WP:FLC if we go and review some candidacies. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

These things can take some time but community input is important and the request has only been open four days. In the meantime, there's no need to wait on reviewing nominees. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The RfC has been open for 4 days but discussion has been fairly repetitive since discsussion started back in July. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, I'd have liked a short, friendly discussion myself. But we're getting some new blood in here now so let's give it a chance. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Consensus is set, and stated quite clearly in the WP:MOS: WP:L "Legitimate red links should not be resolved by simply removing the bracket. If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic article, then the link should be kept. Such links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be "fixed"." and WP:REDLINK states, "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article". The criterion here on red links is in contradiction to WP:MOS, and therefore against Wiki-wide consensus. Dekkappai (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is definitely set here to leave the criteria as is. There is no contradiction between the criteria and MOS. There's nowhere in the criteria that even implies that legitimate links should be delinked.--Cheetah (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The consensus is that there's no consensus? Huh, what? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead wrong. Read the above again. WP:MOS says to link potential articles. This criteria says to minimize them, and "consensus" above explicitly states red-links are not wanted here. These criteria contradict WP:MOS. The link criteria should be in line with WP:MOS. Dekkappai (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say "Minimize by removing the link", it says "minimize by turning them blue".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't say either, actually. Both methods have been endorsed by various people here and in FLCs. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Stubbing it out with a no-info stub turns it blue! But does not only NO good, but less than good, since it hides need for an article that needs information. The real problem with most stubs is that they actually don't DO anything for the encyclopedia, other than get rid of some redlink. Except save the new editor a couple of keystrokes, at the high cost of hiding the problem even more thoroughly than I've been accused of wanting to by making the deadlinks GREEN SBHarris 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Christ. This is how we get such self-contradictory crap-think throughout the project. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria (just click the "Project" tag instead of "Discussion" at the top of this page) says, "...it has a minimal proportion of red links." And the consensus of the "regulars" above lays out what that means. If I may paraphrase: "A list on a subject area that is not already well-covered by Wikipedia is not welcomed here. Tough titty." No point continuing the "discussion" here if we're not even looking at the page we're discussing... Well, I know one project to avoid now. Unless I want to do a Family Guy list... Happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were trying to build an encyclopaedia. Seems some folk just want a bronze star and don't want to spend the effort to fill in the other holes in the coverage.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your comments. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says that the stubs will have no info? Stubs are always better than no article at all. The main goal of Wikipedia is the growth! The growth happens when more articles are created. IP users and newly registered users cannot create articles; thus, cannot make red links into blue THUS cannot make Wikipedia grow! However they can expand stubs.
User:Dekkappai, your paraphrasing is not even close to what we're talking about. -- -Cheetah (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and they can also vandalize stubs, thus keeping editors with Twinkle even busier. Isn't providing busywork like knitting or videogaming the real purpose of much of Wikipedia? Otherwise many of its institutions wouldn't exist at all.

A stub is NOT better than no article, if it covers up a deadlink. Since it looks like there is extra info when there may be none (cat tags can be copied from the original article, and the ones there still apply to the stub, so they don't count). SBHarris 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys please take the "stubs are harmful" argument elsewhere. In fact, how about the Village Pump on April 1st. Give us all a good laugh. Colin°Talk 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Colin, insulting people is not helping your cause. Don't be disruptive. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This "A stub is NOT better than no article, if it covers up a deadlink.", and your similar "Stub creation subjectively "polishes" a list but disguises the fact that Wikipedia is not done and the area needs more coverage" should be proposed at WT:STUB and posted at the village pump for community-wide discussion. I really really dare you. If you don't get laughed out of town, I'll apologise. Colin°Talk 11:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Colin, just because you don't believe multiple arguments by multiple editors to be valid, that does not mean that they aren't. You've implied that mass stub creation has no downside, and that bias is the responsibility of the minority. Those are fundamental misunderstandings. Ignorance is not an argument. Insults are not an argument. And I would suggest you already owe these gentlemen an apology for your behaviour. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's be clear what we mean by a stub. WP:STUB says "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." Later it warns that a stub with no sources may be AfD'd. The argument about mass creation of no-info stubs is just wasting our time here. Doing that to achieve FL would be disruptive behaviour that should be strongly criticised (as should mass delinking of redlinks that should be links). Given that a redlink will 99% of the time be turned into either a redirect or a stub (as creating a full article in one go is a rare event, typicially done by experienced editors using a sandbox), I fail to see why such a stub creation activity is worse if done as a mass activity by editors knowlegable in the subject compared to leaving it to the great unwashed masses to do bit-by-bit over many years. The former is more likely to produce a consistent body of work and far less likely to need the sort of new-article cleanup chore that newbies produce. The "I'd rather have a redlink than a stub" argumement is anti-Wikipedia. The "stubs get vandalised and keep Twinkle users busy" argument is also false as it is basically an argument against new article creation. Do you really want those red links to remain red to prevent vandalism? That's like deciding not to have children because they'll only disappoint you. Less content good; more content bad? BTW: articles in minority areas typically don't get vandalised -- I have lots in my watchlist. As Crzycheetah says, our IP readers can't actually create new articles so expanding a stub is the only way they can contribute.
Wrt "[fixing] bias is the responsibility of the minority", history tells us this is true. No minority ever got their problems sorted by sitting back expecting the majority to do something about it. Colin°Talk 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, I did not ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you not to be rude when someone disagrees with you. For example, you seem to be having difficulty addressing the actual arguments you're responding to but I've not suggested that that's a laughing matter. And if you don't understand bias, don't spread misinformation. As this is the English Wikipedia with predominantly first language contributors, there will always be a bias towards English language topics. Likewise there will always be a bias towards contemporary topics. Fact of life, right? But if we want the sum of all knowledge represented here this is everybody's problem. Stubs are a means to an end here, getting rid of red links (which is still depreciating red links.) If the list doesn't have enough information to stand on its own, it shouldn't be a featured list. Creating peripheral work for editors of mainstream subject matter may not make much of a visible difference but it's still unnecessary. Creating the same for editors of underrepresented subject matter takes them off important articles, one's they can fill out properly and of interest to them. Which is more important, a bunch of stubs for films no one outside of Japan has seen, or a core article like Akira Kurosawa? It is not FLCs purpose to tell editors which articles to write. Again, a better summary can be found at WP:BIAS but I've no illusions you specifically will ever read that. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support removal. This clause is being used as an excuse to eliminate redlinks generally, gespite their purpose in signaling articles that need to be made. They're one of the key ways we build the network of articles. Creating a stub can diminish this indication and give the illusion we have an article. Not that I would disparage stubs, either, in many cases--I've made a lot of them when there actually is enough information at hand. . There is more than one way to work. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • DGG, you're talking about red links in general. The criteria cannot possibly eliminate the red links from the Wikipedia. It's mission impossible! This is a very wrong assumption that hovers around this discussion. As for the stubs, Why do you assume that the stubs others create will only give "an illusion" of an article? Any person who works on the featured list is very capable of making a stub or even a good article from a subject his/her list is about.--Cheetah (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheetah, it's red link depreciation. This has been defined above. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't been around in a couple of months, and haven't followed the conversation all the way through, but my two cents is that the discouragement of redlinks does lead to the creation of stubs with positive effects for wikipedia as a whole. One example - back when I submitted List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates, a reviewer opposed because of the number of redlinks. I and another editor went through and created stubs for all of them, which was annoying as heck. But the end result is a lot of decent short articles that may not have been created otherwise, and now every state-level politician in Maryland has an article. To the extent that the featured processes are intended to encourage improvement of the encyclopedia as a whole and not just add a feather to the cap of an editor, I think the current criteria on redlinks is fine. However, it is incumbent upon reviewers that they work to avoid mass de-linking as a shortcut around the criterion. Geraldk (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not simply encouraging stub creation, certain reviewers are demanding an arbitrary number of stubs which aren't even reviewed during FLC. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal -- The purpose of a redlink is to indicate that there is an article that needs creating. The same person or topic may have come up in several contexts. This means that as soon as the article is created all these are linked. There are of course some stupid redlinks, and these should be removed. However, a redlink should in my view always be retained unless the subject is clearly NN. Some time ago, I spent time working on the lists of British MPs for constituency articles. This produced hundreds of redlinks. Similarly the lists of British peers used to have each name with a redlink if there was no article. The decision to remove a redlink is not necessarily merely removing clutter: it is a definite decision by the editor that the subject is NN. I could accept the argument that the FA criteria or GA criteria should require any redlinks to be converted to stubs before the nomination can be accepted. However removing redlinks is much more than mere housekeeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
My contribution was the subject of an edit conflict with that of Geraldk. The problem we raise is precisely the same one. In my view the reviewer should not have rejected his article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If the requirement is kept could we please have it be a bit more clear on both how the redlinks are reduced (not by removing) and a better guideline on how many red links are considered "minimal" because it just leads to more discussion, headaches and different criterion for different FLCs depending on who's reviewing them.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of the criteria to tell readers how to achieve them, especially when the option most mentioned here (delinking (unless overlinked)) is absolutely against our guidelines. I suspect a short essay on how to prepare a list for FL might be useful. There are similar (longer) essays for FA. Similarly, I don't see a problem with editors discussing how many redlinks to allow on a given article because it should be done on a case-by-case basis. See further up for my personal guidelines. Perhaps it would be easier for reviewers if they started with a "no red links" position and it was up to the nominator to convince them otherwise. Colin°Talk 10:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well yes I belive it IS the purpose to be clear, after all people complain about delinking so obvious it needs to be crystal clear. No need for an essay when it can be stated clearly - you advocate rules, but don't want to make them specific, if you cannot commit enough to something to make it clear and unambiguous then you're just arguing to read your own words.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  14:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is it possible to review and close the steadily rising backlog of FLCs while participating in this discussion? Personally I believe that red links should be remained. Extremepro (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. A list is not an article. A list is a series of links, and a featured list should be a useful set of links to existing articles. SilkTork *YES! 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, lists are articles. See WP:LIST and WP:LISTPURP. Weird, right? Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Lists should not be a sea of redlinks. Lists should also not be limited to an arbitrary absolute number of redlinks (like "no more than 10 redlinks anywhere on the page"), but it's reasonable enough for the FLC to expect a small proportion of main-article-worthy links to be red. I don't think that it's unreasonable for a featured list to have articles at more than half of the main items in the list. Using User:Bencherlite/FLC_redlink_example as an example, that means that more than 50% of the notable alumni need stubs, but that other linked words could be as red as they wanted.
    I also don't think that it's in FLC's best interest to name a specific percentage because the correct proportion will depend on the article. Requiring articles at 50% of 500 items is more reasonable than 90%, but requiring 90% of ten items might be perfectly reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps keeping the wording but adding a footnote stating something like that?陣内Jinnai 06:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggest Not more than 5% redlinks. Redlinks are good for the project, and encouraging the removal of every last one of them is a bad practice that is spreading, to the detriment of the project. Of course, seas of redlinks are bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. User:Bencherlite/FLC redlink example is a good article, but hard to read. It also gives the impression that a lot of work still needs to be done, but following stub links would not educate the reader either. On the other hand, a list is a good list qua list regardless of how much is known about the individual entries. I don't think removing links altogether is that harmful: when creating a new article, one usually searches for any occurrence. If the red links became much darker, in fact less noticeable than blue links, would I change my opinion? Probably. I'd oppose formalising "minimal" to specific numbers; it currently seems flexible, and arguments generated may be worthwhile ones. By the way, I don't quite understand "red link depreciation" in the discussion above. I would have thought devaluation would arise from too many red links; we're not confusing it with "deprecation" are we? --Cedderstk 10:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the stubs Bencherlite created. Here's the first six stubs as they were when created: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I don't think anyone would argue that "following [those] stub links would not educate the reader". Colin°Talk 10:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you've checked out all stubs created so far and can magically check out all future stubs and deem your examples as representative of all stubs created or to be created' because of this rule? You can always find articles that are not shitty stubs so that doesn't really help your argument any.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  12:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to. I was countering the statement "following stub links would not educate the reader either", which can be expressed logically as "For all links to stubs, following those links would not be educational". This logical statement can be proved false by finding examples where following links to stubs was educational. That I found such examples by merely picking the first six stubs in Bencherlite's examples (rather than hunting for the good ones), further weakens the argument. Yes people can create crap stubs, but nowhere on Wikipedia do we discourage folk from creating articles (no matter how weak their efforts) on notable topics (other than, it seems, in this discussion). Colin°Talk 13:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere on Wikipedia do we force people to create them, well except for Feature List Candidates and that's the whole point of this, not the opposite.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And no one is discouraging creating articles at all, stubs or not, saying that the "anti-redlink criteria" says that is just plain wrong. The opposiste, if the criteria stays some people may remove redlinks that could be notable, removing one of the ways Wikipedia encourages article creation - via redlinks.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no forcing at all. Nobody is obliged to put forward articles for FL candidacy. That's like saying we force people to write a professional quality of English. Actually, several people in this discussion have made statements discouraging the creation of stub articles, and it is one of the "anti-redlink criteria" summary points ("Stub creation subjectively "polishes" a list but disguises the fact that Wikipedia is not done and the area needs more coverage"). Nowhere do the criteria say or suggest that notable redlinks be removed. That the criteria is being misinterpreted by some people is a problem but it is not an issue raised by this RFC -- which specifically wants us to accept for Featured List lists that may contain any number of redlinks (including 100% of the list items). Colin°Talk 14:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Red link depreciation is referring to the depreciation of their use. As in, when you delink them it reduces the odds that said articles will be created; when you stubify them en masse, it reduces the impression that Wikipedia is a work in progress and has room to grow. Since editors often look to featured lists in creating and editing other lists, the concern is that the reduced visibility here will have a detrimental effect across the project. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep the criterion as it stands, it's the only compromise between a sea of red links and no red links (and all this stub-fear). Please now go and review some lists - we need this kind of energy to be expended more usefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The RfC was started to get community-wide input. I don't understand the fear that this could negatively impact the back log. And believe me, the idea behind the proposed change is all about directing energy in the most efficient direction possible. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been going for two weeks and it fairly clear that there's no consensus for change and that on some things we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think, as FL director, The Rambling Man should close the discussion. Colin°Talk 07:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree and I've undone the close. The issue affects the entire community and is not strictly an FLC affair and, sorry Rambling Man, but "voting" and then closing in your favour mid-debate is poor form. Even if this were closed now this will only come up again and again as the clause is patently unclear and even harmful. It's better to deal with this now while we have so many eyes. Frankly, going through the logs there are only a small minority—vocal though it may be—opposing based on red links. That's consensus enough in my mind but I'm willing to take the next obvious step, which is to see if we can find a rewrite to that satisfies everyone. I'll take a stab at it later today and I suspect, at the very least, somebody will be able to suggest a better word than "minimal". Doctor Sunshine (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (3)

Just a quick reality check to measure the gravity of the proposed revision. The clause was boldly removed in February of this year, the revision dutifully followed in FLC reviews and no one noticed or cared enough to challenge this until five months later. In that time FLC did not collapse, the foundations of Wikipedia were not shaken and life went on. Factoring the majority opinion here and the vast majority opinion via demonstrative supports in actual FLCs, I suggest there is consensus for the removal. However, I don't want anyone to feel disenfranchised—call me a softy—so I'm going to suggest a rewrite. I still support the removal but if there's a possible rewrite to get a few more people on board I may be able to get on board with that. (Revision in bold.)

[5](a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. The creation of stubs for red links is encouraged but not required.

My rational follows. Overwhelmingly, it's understood that red links are a good thing and to be encouraged, therefore the revision emphasizes stub creation instead of red link removal. Also overwhelmingly, a finite limit on red links was opposed. "Minimal" can be interpreted as "no more than necessary" or "a small amount"; and both of those interpreted further. In theory, an interpretable amount may seem fine but, in practice, reviewers select abstract limits—30, 50, 80, 90 percent—and the results vary between FLCs and nominations are halted when multiple reviewers disagree. On encouraging instead of requiring: All articles (including lists) should be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click through several other articles to understand and benefit from the information, meaning stubs and other articles are not requirements of a list. It's nice if they're there but they do not fall under FLC's jurisdiction. If some find red links to be distracting (who?) or unfinished (I've said it before but it's important: red links indicate the status of other articles, not the list) they have not been deemed so much so, so as to disallow 30, 50, 80 or 90 percent to remain in the list. With certain reviewers still insisting that single red links be dealt with during FLCs, countering red link hate is more important. Also important, this will reduce bias against marginalized topics which should encourage a little more variety and growth in FLs.

This Request for Comment has been remarkably (or comparably) civil and I'd like to see it continue that way, maybe even with more new opinions and fewer repeatedly stated ones—I know: I should talk. Opinions and other possible rewrites welcomed and appreciated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, can you link to FLCs that were promoted with more than minimal redlinks during the five months in question, given that you say it shows a "vast majority opinion" in favour of the direction you want to go? And can you link to FLCs where "certain reviewers [have been]insisting that single red links be dealt with"? BencherliteTalk 06:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to do that tomorrow. In the meantime, Google seems the best way to find them.[11]
These are the "featured list criteria", not the "feature list suggestions". Anything that is not required will be ignored or rejected by nominators unwilling to follow the suggestion.
It is quite clear that Dr Sunshine will continue this campaign, despite considerable opposition, while he believes his FLC of redlinks has any chance. Both the FLC and this RfC should be closed: they've been running long enough. The FLC was nominated while the redlink restriction was in place, so should be considered for promotion/archiving under those restrictions. It would be better for all of us if this debate did not influence a current nomination. Dr Sunshine can renominate should the criteria be changed in the future. But for now, I think most of us are tired of this particular debate. Colin°Talk 07:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This has become a mockery of the whole FLC process. Where are the directors/delegates when you need them?--Cheetah (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about Cheetah? I tried to close this discussion with no consensus and was overturned. I'm not engaging in a kind of wheel war here. There's obviously no clear consensus but if people continue to debate it, then the discussion will continue. Perhaps you'd like to get involved as a director if you feel that the current group of us aren't doing our "job"s properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's the director's job to get involved in this, anyway. The director/delegates are here to judge consensus at FLC and maintain order within the rest of FL's scope. Not stomp around shutting down discussions or imposing their own thoughts and beliefs, shaping FLs into the mould of what they want it to be. There needs to be some resistance and distance, and they're doing that here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
TRM, you did the right thing, it's not your fault that your delegates did not come and help you out when your closure was overturned. Reopening the discussion closed by the director is a sign of disrespect towards the director and the whole process. Matthew, as a director/former director, you must have enough experience to realize that this discussion is stuck and will not have a clear consensus. For the sake of this process, can we stop flogging a dead horse.--Cheetah (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No consensus - my vote is to close discussion. Geraldk (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheetah trying to blame delegates doesn't help anyone. TRM tried to close this. Once that was undone with a claim of bias we should really have an uninvolved neutral to close it. I think quite a few people here want this closed (me included), however the majority are involved parties. I think the ways this can now be closed are either Doctor Sunshine withdrawing the RfC or a neutral closing it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Guys, WP:Assume good faith. From WP:Requests for Comment: "(RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution". A week is not a very long time for an RfC. If you have problems with the RfC process itself, FLC directors or delegates, individual FLCs, or me, please start a discussion at the appropriate venue. Otherwise, try to keep an open mind, sit back, relax and let the conversation play itself out. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Bencherlite, I don't know what you consider minimal. In regards to consensus in the field, if you click on the FLC linked above (and here) you'll see four supports and one red link–based oppose which notes that he doesn't agree with the criteria but interprets it differently than the nominator (me) and supporters. (The second oppose was a direct result of this RfC, made yesterday.[12]) If you browse through the pages in the Google link I provided—or the FLC logs—you'll find this is indicative. On your second query, here are the first few instances of red link hate on single occurances.[13][14][15] Again, more can be found with Google or the logs. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've requested an uninvolved admin to close this RfC. When multiple semi-uninvolved editors are calling for this RfC to be closed, we must at least consider that option. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, all five have opposed the removal but are considered semi-uninvolved? Colin and, to a lesser extent, Cheetah can sidetrack an RfC and have it shut down for it having been sidetracked? I'm all for another outside opinion—that's why I started the RfC—but you're going to make a cynic out of me. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving Web pages for verifiability

Many pages on the web get deleted and become inaccessible. Web Citation provides a way to make sure that dead external links wouldn't occur. The {{Cite web}} template provides archiveurl parameter for the purpose of adding archived links of pages through webcite. Archive.org sometimes skips pages and the information becomes inaccessible. Shouldn't archiving web references for future verification be a criteria of a featured list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And what happens when the Webcite website goes down, as it has in the past? In fact, on one of those occasions it was because Wikipedia (or some bot) was using it too much and crashed it, no? If all the references in all our FLs were cited through Webcite's archives, every single FL would have been unverifiable. I'd rather one or two references in one or two FLs be bad links than every single reference on the project. It's just too risky to rely on Webcite all the time. The only time I use it is if I know the page is definitely going to expire, such as Yahoo news pages, or http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/ which changes on a weekly basis. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Good points, though I don't see any harm in creating archived versions and adding the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters between <!-- and -->. Goodraise 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The original link and the webcite link are kept in the reference, so the original links, even if they become dead, are kept in the reference. Webcite links were only broken for a while then returned active again; The site moved to new servers just for the demand of Wikipedia. The bot User:WebCiteBOT still runs, to this day, and archives various newly added links. (It has a backlog though...) --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I've suffered link rot on some of my lists and it took hours and several editors working together to repair. However, I think as a result we also improved the quality of the sources for the list, or removed items that were never well sourced to begin with. Our citation guidelines (WP:DEADREF) currently don't rise above "consider" wrt the use of WebCite. Looking through the archives, I see issues where the WebCite servers were broken for a period and also concerns that their servers couldn't handle the demand if Wikipedia started routing all external-link-citations through it. I don't think featured content could demand this until using WebCite (or similar) was actually a guideline requirement. Perhaps WT:CITE is the more appropriate venue to discuss making it a formal guideline. Colin°Talk 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree that we should encourage fixing dead links as necessary, disagree with making explicit mentions of it in the criteria; anyway, it is covered by the citation guidelines that Colin mentions above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
And according to ThaddeusB, who runs the webcite bot, WebCite.com is indeed down at the moment... Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria/Archive_2&oldid=1147972870"