Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Archive 3

Potential for List of drug-related deaths to be featured list or will it never meet "comprehensive" requirement?

Is there any potential for List of drug-related deaths to become a featured list if all of the current names are appropriately sourced, or will such a list never meet the "comprehensive coverage" of the topic? How would one know when the coverage becomes close to comprehensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.26 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've got a number of incomplete lists as featured lists. Alumni lists seem to spring to mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential for List of Texas Tech University buildings

I'm wanting to see if List of Texas Tech University buildings would meet FL criteria if the majority of the buildings didn't have an article. Major campus buildings like Administration Building (Texas Tech University) have articles but others like English and Philosophy Building will probably never achieve notability criteria.

FL Listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) only has two linked entries in its list. Could List of Texas Tech University buildings follow in its footsteps? NThomas (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, is there not enough material to expand the list into a conventional article, like Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (a featured article)? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, some buildings only have a few sentences of information where others have enough for 100k articles. A completed list would be ~100 buildings. I don't think an article would be able to cover all of them without seeming disproportionate. The reason I ask is that most won't be noteworthy of articles themselves but like FL Listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area), there would be several entries with articles. NThomas (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Notifacation Of Proposal To Promote wp:quote

There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.

I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well.174.3.107.176 (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed additional criterion

A featured list must have 1. prose 2. lead 3. comprehensiveness 4. structure 5. style 6. stability. I note that accuracy is not on this list. I diffidently suggest that a FL also be checked to be accurate; and that this criterion comes before all others. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

disappointing you didn't wish to continue the discussion, but it's not a list issue, it's a Wikipedia-wide issue. No-one said policies are perfect, just they're what we comply with. They can change as well, as long as people are prepared to discuss them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion now spans 3 talk pages, wouldn't it be better to keep it in one relevant place where it can attract "community" input?

In the way of discussion and hopefully changing bad policy, I have suggested an improvement to the FL criteria on this talk page. If chanting WP:V was all that was needed, then why did List of amateur radio frequency bands in India get in, when for over a year it had the wrong descriptions of the emission type codes? (I fixed the descriptions before making the observation on WP:FLC). What *more* can I do to suggest improvements in the FL process? Or is it so perfect that we non-admins dare not suggest changes?

Something that apparently helps pilots and surgeons is a check list. Perhaps FL review needs a checklist, so that each step and criterion can be seen to be addressed before putting the "featured" flag on a list (or article). However, I fear that if the process was made verifiable, the number of "featured" articles and lists would grow even more slowly. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You spanned it cross-Wiki, for what it's worth. We don't just have our own criteria, we are subservient to the policies of the Wikipedia as a whole. Changing a "bad policy" isn't relevant to FLC, it's relevant to Wikipedia. Take the debate there, not here. Non admins are forever welcome here, as they are throughout Wikipedia, as are anon editors, as long as they make positive contributions. If you'd like to raise an issue with the policies, please take your debate to the relevant pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, my position as an admin has utterly no bearing on this discussion. Any concept that an "admin" has more "say" in any discussion than any other editor is pure [citation needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I expected an admin to have more interest in and familiarity with Wikipedia policy - that's the relevance to this discussion.

To recap, I am not interested in reforming the "verifiability" policy. My specific interest is in the accuracy of featured lists. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria that specifically mentions that a featured list must be accurate. From exactly ONE experience looking at a featured list where I had subject matter experience, I can see that WP:V was not applied in that case. Since it's unlikely I stumbled upon the only case where this had happend, I looked at the criteria. I saw more emphasis there on beauty-pagent attributes of an article than on correctness of facts.

How can we show that the "featured article" process actually applies the stated criteria, including "verifiability" ( which now I am scared to look at for fear it's got as many holes in it as the FL process itself)? "Auditing processes" is a great buzzword in business today; how do we do any quality assurance on our articles and lists? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your suggestions Wtshymanski. Verifiability is already covered by the preamble of the FL criteria (meets "the requirements for all Wikipedia content ... particularly ... verifiability"). I won't deny that inaccuracy isn't a problem in some Featured lists. However, as you may know, content review processes are chronically backlogged, and we can't put any more strain on them by complicating the reviews procedures. The only solution is for more editors to review. Perhaps you might help out with checking for accuracy on FLCs by reviewing a few? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent). See above. How do we know anyone has checked a featured list candidate for verifiability? I'm told "accuracy" is not our concern here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't. How do we know that some lists are comprehensive and contain all major items (e.g. in this). Truth is often we can't, or we must assume good faith. I actually used to be more on your side in this than you think. I used to check every reference (online ones at least) and any maths in lists. The results were often overwhelming. The fact of the matter is, that it takes a lot of time. Something I no longer have (and many others are in a similar position). If you can help the reviewing process even slightly by checking the verifiabilty of some lists then I'm sure I speak for all contributors in saying it would be greatly appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What Rambo's Revenges says is disheartening, but true. In a perfect world, every Featured article and Featured list would be independently verified by another editor (or better yet, an expert in the subject matter), but unfortunately that is not a sustainable process. I don't think verifiability checking in featured content is a completely lost cause though; the practice of sampling a few bits of info from the list and spot-checking them against the sources is a good practice. Even if some errors are missed, the nominator learns to be more careful, and some verification is better than none. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility

Should accessibility be a criterion that a list should have, or at least specifically mention at #4? --JD554 (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It comes under meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content. Note that only policies (not guidelines) are mentioned explicitly in the opening sentence. I've seen reviewers oppose on accessibilty (and have done so myself) and have never seen any nominator object because it is not explicitly in the criteria. While it certainly could be mentioned explicitly I'm not sure it is needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I brought this up because there has been a recent change to the WP:ACCESS#Data tables, adding the requirement for "scope=col" or "scope=row" to tables. I'm sure this will have quite a large impact on list articles given the heavy use of tables these articles have. --JD554 (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is good practise, and I'm glad it's been brought in there. But why on earth does it matter if any old Joe or Josephene is able to change the structure of a featured list? I can't imagine any circumstances where someone would have a need to dramatically alter an FL's table without first seeking consensus. --WFC-- 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my previous edit summary. I tend to do that when I want page watchers to provide their input. It's easier for a designer to tinker with syntax they're used to, and to only learn new syntax when there's a tangible benefit to doing so. Forcing designers of complex tables to comply with something we're not entirely comfortable with will only drive us away, or tempt us to take easier options. My approach is that it's best to know as little syntax as possible, do as much as possible with it, and learn more when there is a tangible benefit to doing so.

At FL we should always, uncompromisingly, be aiming for the best solution, regardless of how easy that is to understand. I'm firmly opposed to this being explicitly mentioned, but regardless, I don't see why this is any less of an accessible solution. The policy itself needs to be more accomodating before we even have this discussion, but even then, I would be opposed to an explicit mention. --WFC-- 11:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand who the accesibility is for? Your edit helps those editing, sure, but the proposed change is for voice browsers which, I assume, benefits visually impaired etc. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done some reading based on that comment, and here's an extract:

It can cause problems if a column or row header contains a colspan/rowspan. If there is a colspan in the first table row, both columns will be described the same by the voice browser; a similar thing happens if the first table column has rows joined by a rowspan. This may be mitigated by other aspects of the table; for instance the table may be chronologically organized, or the two columns may contain, respectively, a hard number and a percentage with a percent sign.

It can cause problems if cells that are not in the first row or column contain a colspan/rowspan. If the content of the joined cells does not actually apply to all of the corresponding cells in the first row or column, then the voice browser may incorrectly report the header that applies to those cells.

It can cause problems if the first column in a row has non-text comment such as a photograph (unless the photograph contains an alt attribute) or a color without explanatory text.

Introducing this change whilst allowing these things to continue would be useless. Banning all of these things would leave a significant percentage of featured lists failing to meet the criteria, in many cases unsalvageably so. --WFC-- 12:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Images should have alt text and colours should have explanatory text and use a symbol as well to comply with WP:ACCESS, so those are a non-issues (if they don't, the list is unlikely to be promoted anyway). The issue regarding colspan and rowspan is the one that concerns me as they are used extensively in discography lists. I've asked at WT:ACCESS#How to make accessible tables for guidance on this. --JD554 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility is already covered in criterion 2, compliance with the Manual of Style. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Super-notability

I came across this today - "The UNESCO World Heritage List is possibly the best known list, of anything, anywhere on Earth". Perhaps the source - heritage-key.com/blogs" - is less impressive than the statement, but I thought list fans might find it of interest. Ben MacDui 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Should size be a criterion?

Until a few month ago, Wikipedia:Article size was part of the Manual of Style and as such part of the criteria. Now that it is an editing guideline, the current wording allows for lists of near infinite size. That kinda bothers me. Am I the only one? Goodraise 21:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS seems to be out of control. Featured content that depends on its definition are all up in the air because of its moving goalposts. I haven't got the energy (or time) right now to work out if we now accept infinite articles as well as infinite lists. Goodraise, would you be kind enough to synopsise what's happening? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I'd love to, but I've got no idea myself. I've been editing very little this past year or so. From what I can tell, there's been some sort of drive to clean-up guideline pages. Beyond that, I don't know. I try to stay away from guideline talk pages as much as possible. (I tend to have unproductive and frustrating experiences there.) I usually just mindlessly study the guidelines and go off to bother featured list nominators by vehemently insisting on their rigorous application... Perhaps I should pay WT:MOS a visit for a change. Goodraise 21:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just decide on what you want Featured Lists to have, instead of moving the goalposts every time a couple of MOS editors decide something would be a nice new shiny rule? (They do seem to citing sources more often; perhaps their guidance will converge to English usage in the foreseeable future.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean "screw the guidelines, we make our own rules"? Can't say I find the idea completely unappealing, but what do we do when there's em- and en-dashes used the same way in the same list? The thought of finding myself supporting promotion of such lists, because the criteria don't include the MOS anymore, makes me feel even more uneasy than lists of infinite length. Goodraise 00:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. They're not English, they're not consensus (and so not really guidelines) and they inhibit the encyclopedia. And whether any given sentence is actually enforced depends largely on whether one of the two or three editors who knows or cares about it shows up at the FLC. But then - as certain MOS regulars will be sure to tell you - I'm a subversive anarchist; I've even doubted that MOS descended from heaven on stone tablets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's more a case that some common sense needs to be applied here. To borrow a legal example for a moment, but assume an alleged criminal is indicted under a version of the applicable law written in the 1980s. During the course of the trial, the legislature amends the law. That trial will use the previous version of the law, not the new one in most cases. Where changes to a MOS guideline are happening in the middle of a FLC, we should apply some common sense and apply the previous MOS guideline. Once it stabilizes, the article can be updated to comply, but we shouldn't completely disregard the guidance that the guideline gives us in the interim. Imzadi 1979 → 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer here. Most parts of the MOS are stable and have been followed and accepted by the community without complaint. If there's something wrong with this editing guideline (which I haven't followed), then we should address that. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What baby? I can see the bathwater.-Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

But to be perfectly serious; do by all means include any section of MOS which is genuinely stable, generally accepted, and important to Featured Lists in your guidelines. Accessibility may well be important; the dozen cases on when to spell out numbers may not be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, accessibility is one of the least stable guidelines of all. --WFC-- 01:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pity; it used to be; but I haven't been following it. In that case, decide what accessibility FLs need and require that until it settles down. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What's worse is that much of the problems relate to technical issues (see one discussion) of which many editors (including me) can make neither head nor tail. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I did try to remedy the problem, but was reverted. My thinking is that if we mandate stable guidelines, edit-warriors are undermining the very thing they seek to promote, and that only through consensus will a guideline remain stable. --WFC-- 01:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with that sentiment, but I think codifying it is unnecessary. It's just common sense. When I close FLCs I always evaluate the outstanding opposes for their merit (based on policy, guidelines and the criteria). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

@Pmanderson: I generally agree, though I would substitute "applicable" for "important". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The maths. The previous "limit" was 100kilobytes, which is 800 kilobits. 800 kilobits at dial-up speed (56 kilobits per second) would take 14.28 seconds. 56 kilobits per second is the theoretical capability of dial-up, but in practise 45 kilobits per second is a more typical speed, which would equate to a 17.77 second download time. Going on the latter figure, a 170 kilobyte list would take the typical dial-up user roughly 30 seconds. --WFC-- 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Opinion: anything above 170 kilobytes should be judged on whether the extra wait for a dial-up user justifies the list being combined. Conversely, a list that would be under 170kb if complete should be complete, unless consensus deems that a split is beneficial. There are of course other considerations, but that's my view if we are talking about sheer size. --WFC-- 21:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A comment, but WFC, is your example above factoring in any images or other media? The hypothetical 170 kilobyte list downloading in 30 seconds assumes there are no graphics or other media files, just the pure wikitext markup and content. Unless I misread, which is possible, the page size tool I use only reports on text, not the media involved which would factor into that download time. Imzadi 1979 → 00:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • That's correct, my calculation was based on a plain-text loading time. Partly because it was a purely mathematical calculation (for instance, I don't know whether a 3MB featured picture requires fewer bites to load if being viewed at 200px). But partly because I see such considerations as being the responsibility of developers. If images pose an access issue to dial-up users, the appropriate solution would be to not load images on dial-up connections by default, rather than to ban the use of good images in FAs and FLs. --WFC-- 01:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Goodraise, as I see it the MoS has never been as unstable as it has been in the last few months, a view that The Rambling Man's contribution to this discussion would seem to endorse. If my brief addition was redundant, it would at least explicitly depreciate wikilaywering over contentious guidelines, something that I think would help the directors in cases where FLCs go off track through spurious or hotly contested MoS grounds. --WFC-- 01:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that when articles become too big they get split up. I can't really comment much on other areas but with discographies they can be split into single discography, album discography and videography. With regards to articles in general large ones over 100kb can usually be pruned. Every so often I stumble accross an article and just a quick 10 minute copyedit alone can usually reduce article size by 5kb. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A limit to plain text mostly relates to the psychology of reading a single article. The inclusion of images relates more to download speed, I guess. It's hard to match both considerations. The matter of article size is difficult at FAC and FLC. Attempts to define the limits of too-small and too-large at FAC have been less than successful. However, the too-large issue is covered in principle by the guidelines on summary style, which expects ever-increasing levels of detail in daughter articles. I suppose this is based on a notion that readers are turned off by wading through enormous and extensively detailed articles at one hit, and would rather access greater detail through the linking system. This may not work as well for FLs; but certainly, reviewers should be able to comment that a nomination is of unsuitable length. Are there any examples? I've seen tiny tables that appear gratuitous, and I've felt it's unfair to promote FACs that are comprise just a few short sections on a very narrow topic: it seems to be gaming the system to nominate them. These hardly show "our very best work", or whatever the phrase is.

Dial-up speeds and big pages ... well, I think WP shouldn't be obsessed with this. Broadband connectivity is improving constantly throughout the world. It shouldn't be a race to the bottom, because the bottom now will be different in two years' time. It's more the psychology of reading that concerns me.

The guidelines seem to be much more stable than ever before. It is not easy to propose and implement changes to them. Tony (talk)

Agree with Tony's tradeoffs. Only other point is that daughter articles usually lead to inconsistencies and poor content. One article gets maintained and the other not. So, I'm generally more a fan of keeping it together. Agreed, it makes it a pain, but then how many people really read a decent sized article front to back (unless they are writing a report on the topic). Think most people will jump around to the parts that interest them. Since we have leads, TOCs, section headers, and hopefully clear organization of paragraphs into topics, there are tools for the reader to skip "taxonomy" and move to what he really wants to know, "what it eats and what eats it".

I think maybe the daughter article concept is most useful, when you have uneven amounts of content. Like two paras on A and B, and then 14 paras on C. And they are all equal significance to the topic. It's just going to seem to strange for finished product, to be drilling down into the minutia of C when A and B are already treated in summary fashion. But if you had 14 paras on each, might want to go with it and just use sections to organize into a heirarchy. TCO (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC - 3.b review

Adding a recent timestamp to keep any RfC bots from archiving. –Grondemar 03:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "(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."

I believe this criteria should be deleted. It is not applied uniformly, like the reference MoS is. I'll mention two examples that illustrates the issues. Sandman888 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. "does not largely recreate material from another article" does not mean that you cannot copy&past a quarter of an existing list. E.g. the current Argyle POY FLC is a subset of the list of Argyle players. Of that there is no doubt. The apparent reason this "does not largely recreate material from another article" is because the intro prose is completely different.

2. "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" does not mean that one should try and make a large as possible coherent list. On the FLC of "List of New York Yankees no-hitters" it was argued that such a list could not accommodate the prose added in the current list, and that a list of all no-hitters would be too long (but that list does exist). If adding extra prose renders a 3.b concern null and void, then 3.b should read "(b) In length and/or topic, it is more than 32kb long, it may be a content fork, the list may largely recreate material from another article, if it does not please add more details and prose" as that is how to circumvent the concerns.

• I'm taking this from a very different angle and personal POV than Sandman, but in the end reach a similar conclusion; 3(b) as it stands is not fit for purpose.
• The current centralised RfC on the notability of lists appears on course for a consensus that we need to tweak things slightly but essentially that the current system works fairly well, albeit that sizeable minorities have extreme but fully explained views on either side of the mainstream one. This is not an endorsement of the competence of our deletion processes, but my view is that if a list (or indeed article) is allowed to exist, there is no good reason why it cannot be a featured list (or article). It is not for quite a small minority of people to bar a list from promotion without giving it adequate exposure to a wider audience. I would therefore suggest changing 3(b) to:

"In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists. If a reviewer feels that a list does not meet these requirements, they should list it for a merge or deletion. In this instance, reviews will ordinarily be paused pending the outcome of the relevant discussion."

• "Ordinarily" is there to give the directors explicit scope to exercise their discretion if required. But unless the motivation for trying to delete or merge appears to be point-y or frivilous, it's counterproductive to ask people to review while there is a deletion or merge discussion in place. --WFC-- 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that is much better than the current phrasing, where the FLC overlaps with the AfD process. Example: when I took "List of nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton" to FLRC due to 3.b concerns, consensus were that AfD was the right venue. Three months later the FLC director, in an unrelated AfD, said/implied that FLRC was the right venue. Sandman888 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'm missing the point, but since when should "featured quality" criteria include instructions on how to merge lists or list them for deletion? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We need a criterion for stand-alone lists, but the current one does not make sense, as a list could be demoted on 3(b) grounds but survive AfD, or be promoted on 3(b) grounds and later successfully AfD'd. There have also been allegations in the recent past of a list or lists surviving AfD solely because they were FLs. The purpose of my proposed change is to take some of the drama away from FLC, while at the same time making sure that a very important criterion remains enforceable. While some of the drama would admittedly be shifted to AfD (and potentially DRV), we would at least be getting rid of the duplication and scope for different judgements in different forums that 3(b) throws up. --WFC-- 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I kinda get it, but still, taking WP:WIAFL into its primary context, we need to know what is a featured list, not what isn't a featured list and how to deal with not-featureable material. I just don't think we should get into mixing our "what is"'s with our "what isn't"'s, if you catch my drift. That already means we need a reword, but I really don't like the idea of including instructions on how to go about merging or listing for deletion within our WIAFL criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a fair point. Although as you say, even working on that basis 3(b) would still need a re-write. If we're heading that way, I'd shorten it to "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists." By definition, anything that doesn't meet those requirements should be nominated for a merge or deletion. --WFC-- 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yep, we need to be clear what is a candidate but not go into the processes and procedures that define what to do if someone thinks it's worthy of merging or deletion. Your suggestion seems succinct and difficult to argue with, which is probably a good thing! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • In practise, I think we should point people in the direction of AfD or requested merges at an earlier stage, in preference to having complete deadlocks on 3(b) when on all other counts there is consensus that it meets the criteria. It would give the 3(b) decision a lot more clout whichever way it ultimately went, and would have the added benefit of making yours and Dabomb's jobs a bit easier. --WFC-- 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I think we can do the "direction" thing in the instructions, and therefore it doesn't need to be part of WIAFL. I think (daring to repeat you, and my agreement with you), "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists." is better than we have now. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
              • Definitely. --WFC-- 19:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• A reword may be necessary, but I disagree deleting 3b. This criterion is important because it prevents a nominator from gaming the system, where he/she cannot nominate several lists when they should be one single list.—Chris!_c/t 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly what should be one single list? If the policy isn't clear on this there's still going to be a mess. I can easily count several lists which have passed FLC which IMO should be one list, but that has not been the general consensus. And if it is solved by a case-by-case basis then we, de facto, do not have a policy. A rule should be adhered to, not randomly invoked when some poor guy hasn't added enough prose to give some list a different feel. Sandman888 (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why it is important for reviewers to fully adhere to 3b all the time and raise the issue at FLC if they believe a list should be a part of another article and is split without good reasons. I am sure there are some lists that failed 3b slip through the system. But anyone can bring them to FLRC for further discussion. Just because the rule is not being adhered to consistently, we should not scrap the rule. IMO, if we delete 3b, then it is much harder for reviewers to oppose a list on the basis of content forking, because they didn't actually violate any FL criterion. With that said, I do support changes that would help clarify the criterion.—Chris!_c/t 19:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the standard expected for lists to become featured appears to be a different standard to the standard expected for lists to exist. If the point of 3(b) is to ensure that unworthy lists do not get promoted, then surely any list that fails 3(b) should not exist at all? I strongly disagree with Sandman on where that balance lies, but I agree with him that we should aim to remove the double-standard. --WFC-- 19:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • OK. You do have a point. However, removing criterion 3b (Sandman888's proposal) isn't going to remove that double-standard.—Chris!_c/t 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • True. --WFC-- 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I believe that at least eliminating the overlap with AfD would create a much clearer policy and be a step forward. I do not think FLC is the right venue for questions regarding the existence of an article. Is that not something we agree on? The other thing is of course how the FL criteria should consider 3.b's, should it completely let it be up to the AfD? The explicit mentioning of 3.b in the criteria is a little odd as it places more weight on content forking which is already a part of wikipedia policy. There is no explicit criteria that the list shouldn't be a copyvio, because that is something that is easy to check and everyone agrees on, but defining a content fork is harder and so much room for discretion. And that discretion can often be subject to groupthink and sectoring. I.e. if you happend to be a part of a project where there is consensus for a particular type of list, like lists of nobel laurates by university, then it fulfills 3.b, but if you'd like to write on jewish nobel laureates, a completely different angle, then you have a harder time. Sandman888 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Question The problem does not seem to exist at FAC and it is hard to imagine that an article that resembled a content fork would be taken seriously there. I wonder if this is because there are often fewer intermediate steps (such as GA) between the creation of a list and its appearance at FLC that would weed out such a problem? I don't think FLCs that fail 3b should immediately turn into AfDs but perhaps some specific system to deal with possible violations that would pre-empt further consideration at FLC would be appropriate? Ben MacDui 07:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's because the requirements are different for lists and articles. Many lists (like "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton") would not survive as an article proper ("Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton") because, presumably, there is no scholarly research done on the topic. The current RfC on lists wants to make the requirements of lists similar to that of an article, but there's some opposition to this as some lists are "navigational". Sandman888 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• In lieu of the recent RfC on what a list should be, perhaps 3.b should read "A list should be notable. Any notability burden is placed on the list topic" which seems to be the new notability guideline for lists. That would eliminate controversial content forking of parent list, real or hypothetical. This would IMO include the Argyle POY, as the POY is somewhat notable. Sandman888 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support removing criteria 3b. The criteria effectively summarizes WP:Stand-alone lists. That guideline isn't currently labeled as an inclusion guideline but that's what it effectively is: a list of requirements a stand-alone list article needs to meet in order to justify its existence. It's sort of the list-specific equivalent of WP:N for regular articles. Articles that don't meet WP:N, as judged by consensus at WP:AFD, are deleted; similarly, lists that don't meet the stand-alone list criteria should be deleted, not just denied Featured List status. As a comparison between processes, arguments at WP:FAC that articles aren't notable enough to be featured are always shot down; if an article is notable enough to survive a deletion debate, it is considered notable enough to be featured. Similarly, a debate over whether a list satisfies the WP:STANDALONE inclusion criteria should be held at AfD, not FLC/FLRC. Inclusion debates belong at deletion venues, not featured content venues. –Grondemar 03:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• As there has been no conversation in the past two days on this subject, and there seems to be a general consensus that criteria 3b should be modified, I changed it to read "3(b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists." Please feel free to revert if you disagree with my reading of consensus. –Grondemar 03:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd been observing, planning to comment this weekend, but, in a nutshell, I'd have supported going even further in weakening 3b, so I won't be reverting you. Courcelles 03:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • What is the 3.b criteria now, in what hypothetical situations could it be invoked? It seems just to be a reminder that the list should be able to survive an AfD.. Sandman888 (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I would agree that, as currently written, if someone does not believe a list candidate meets the requirements of WP:SAL, they should nominate the list at WP:AFD The FLC could be placed on hold waiting for the AFD to conclude. –Grondemar 12:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't it be better deleting it then? We don't have an explicit criteria that any lists shouldnt have BLP violations. Sandman888 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I agree with you, but I didn't see a consensus for outright deleting the criteria in the discussion above, so I modified it to what I interpreted as the consensus version. As I indicated above, I would support removing it outright. –Grondemar 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• (OD) Yes let's wait a couple of days and see if anyone has a view to the contrary. Sandman888 (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The change was a good move, although admittedly changes little. My belief is that the answer is to leave 3b as it now stands, in the hope that the criteria for stand-alone lists is sorted out. If it isn't sorted out, it may be worth coming back to this discussion in 6-8 weeks. --WFC-- 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• My 2 cents. I've seen some questions about what the idea of 3b is and for hypothetical situations. In my opinion, this is a reasonable split for a list. However, I could have split it further into years (the content was even there) like this and gamed the system to get 10 FLs for the price of one. Seems a reasonable use of 3b to me, although I'm sure either format would survive AfD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Who's to say that splitting it by year is gaming? I don't believe the current 3.b could be invoked against splitting it by years, who am I to say that splitting by year isn't reasonable? It would just be a "i-dont-find-it-necessary" vote. Then 3.b would still be used on a case-by-case basis, and thus not be a policy/criteria. Sandman888 (talk) 07:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read the entire discussion, but I don't think anyone has addressed the Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year/List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players example brought up. When the discussion for 3b was brought up, the intention was to present exact duplicates from becoming FLs. For example, the Walter Brown Trophy FL [1] had a table that was an exact duplicate of List of NBA Champions. However, looking through the lists, I don't see any similarities at all. Sure, the players list notes those that won the Player of the Year award, but it doesn't include what specific year, what their stats were that year, etc. Applying 3b to that would be very overzealous. I admit that I havent been involved in FLC for a year, so I don't know if its application has changed at all, but it was originally brought in due to the huge number of small FLs, lists that had borderline notability, and duplicates. Content forking had been a big proglem at the time; we were getting quite a few FLCs where they were just small forks of larger pages, like the above Walter Brown Trophy example, which is why we specifically wanted it mentioned in the criteria. It was that kind of stuff that I, and many others, felt cheapened the process. Because when one looked at a tiny list with ten items and a small lead, one would question whether it was truly among wikipedia's best, and dismiss the process. There were also those who felt that we should define what makes a list in the criterion, as that had been a hot topic at the time, for example, does List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, a list that contains no table, fit under the FLC criterion? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I understand what you're saying above, however I believe issues such as whether lists are long enough not to be merged into another article or whether they are notable are inherently inclusion issues rather than quality issues. If a list does not meet inclusion criteria, it should be deleted or merged as appropriate. The proper venue to determine whether a list should be deleted or merged is WP:AFD, not WP:FLC. The problem with holding this kind of discussion at FLC is that even if consensus was that the list was a content fork or not notable, no administrative action would take place to actually delete or merge the list. You would still have to have an WP:AFD discussion which could well go the other way, leaving the list in limbo. It doesn't make sense to discuss the same criteria in two different processes; featured processes need to be concerned with quality issues, not inclusion issues. –Grondemar 01:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw that you unilaterally reverted the criteria though we have consensus among four editors in here, Grondemar who performed the action, I concur along with Courcelles and WFC. There has been ample time to reply (ten days now), and there is no ownership of the FLC criteria. If you believe that Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year "could not reasonable be a part of" List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players, please explain so. It's quite straightforward to include election year and stats in footnotes. ... And what is List of New York Yankees no-hitters if not a content fork of List of Major League Baseball no-hitters? Sandman888 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sandman I don't think we have consensus here. Take a look at all the discussion we had first time round. In response to Grondemar, although it would be nice to have one venue unfortunately (historically) 3b seems needed. An example being the list of universities in Canada topic. Originally, it had 5 sublists but these were deemed unnecessary (3b) so were demoted when it was introduced. The problem I see is that, if a candacy occurs that could reasonbly be included as part of another article, what happens if 3b isn't there. Perhaps it gets nominated at AfD, the list doesn't fail a specific criteria, per se, so it sits as a candidate while AfD occurs. However, AfD shouldn't be an alternative for merge discussions and these can take ages. Take Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber/archive1 and the merge talk for a recent example of that. Now that was closed early because of 3b. We don't want more stale candadicies at FLC as they put off reviewers and we all know there aren;t enough of them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
      • When four editors agree and no-one voices any concerns for a week that would normally be considered consensus. What I object to is the notion that "FLC regulars" have a special say in this. And to your points: "However, AfD shouldn't be an alternative for merge discussions" I think AfD's are good alternatives for merge/redirect discussions when concerning content forks. Alternatively there is the merge proposal procedure. What I don't understand is why the FLC/FLRC venue should duplicate those. The problem with content forks is enforcing WP:SALAT and WP:NOSPLIT rigorously, not introducing an extra criteria. Regarding 'staleness', the director could simply de-transcluse until merge/AfD is over. Sandman888 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• New York Yankees no-hitters is not merely a content fork in the same way that the sub-set lists for Medal of Honor winners or Jesus College grads are not. The content fork section of the rule has an and. Merely recreating material does not make something a content fork, in the same way as noted above (that even if the [Sports Series] MVP winners are mentioned in the [List of Sports Series] article, [List of Sports Series MVP winners] can also exist because it provides additional detailed information outside of the scope of the original article (overcoming the 2nd tier of the anti-content fork clause). Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To Grondemar: AFD and FLC are completely seperate processes. We should define our criteria based on what the community thinks makes a list one of wikipedia's best work. And, many users believe that being a stand-alone list and not a content form is a valid criteria. And I believe that not including that in the criteria hurts the process. FLC is not the afd process, and we're not encouraging users to have deletion discussions in FLCs. Quite frankly, any overlap between the two shouldn't be our concern. Lets just focus on making the best pages possible, and leave deletion issues to those involved in afd. Besides, in a perfect world, it would encourage users to consider these issues BEFORE they create a list.

To Sandman888: Yeah, you're right, FLC regulars shouldn't be given the chance to have a say. After all, it's not like this is the FLC criteria, and it's not like FLC regulars have experience reviewing and creating lists, and it's not like those who helped create the criteria should be given a chance to have a say, right? And, why are you pulling WP:OWN into this? It's basically an unconstructive straw man argument. My rationale is that the criterion was added because of a very lengthy process that had a consensus among a variety of FLC users. That should not be undone by a small discussion with poor participation in which the logic is "no discussion = consensus". As it exists now, the Plymouth F.C. page is not a content fork. Could the pages be merged? I suppose, but I think there is sufficient difference and notablity to warrant seperate pages. The no-hitters one, however, is a content fork (at least, in the way I define content forks). The leads are different, but the most important part of a FL - the actual list - is almost an exact duplicate, except with a few Yankees specific notes. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 12:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a debate over whether making the edit to the criteria when I did was right or wrong; at the time, there had been no discussion whatsoever in the RfC for two days and a general consensus seemed to have formed to change the criteria. The RfC had been publicized in areas such as WT:FLC and WT:FAC, presumably places where FLC regulars would have had the opportunity to see that an RfC was taking place. I would like to note that consensus can change, and the existence of a previous discussion on an issue does not moot future discussion on the same topic. Either way, I have no problem continuing this discussion, and have posted it on {{cent}} to better publicize it to the community. I'll reply to the rest of your comments later today. –Grondemar 12:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that the edit Grondemar made was, in my opinion, entirely warranted at the time. The RfC had been going for over a week, four editors voiced explicit agreement and no-one openly disagreed. Even as it is now, it's one editor who disagree with the opinion of four others. Consensus is not unanimous. Sandman888 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Could the editors that commented at the initial discussion to add 3b to the criteria please be notified? NW (Talk) 12:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• As to the claim that 4 editors represent some broad consensus, from WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That sentence is to clarify that project consensus cannot override consensus at policy-level: a difference in level and clearly not applicable in this instance. This RfC is at the proper place, if only four editors participated that wd still make it consensus, just as if only four editors participated in a RfC on WP:N it would still be consensus. "Silence implies consent." so if only four speaks up, then that's it. Sandman888 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's not the only sentence that goes to the point. The "not walled garden" section of WP:CONSENSUS goes to the same point. "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors." One week of discussion by four editors cannot rewrite one of the few fundamental criteria for a featured process that has existed for what, years? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I really believe Sandman is right here; the intent of that section of WP:CONSENSUS is that a consensus on a article or WikiProject talk page regarding a policy cannot trump the policy itself. An example of a "walled garden" would be the editors of, say, WP:WikiProject Pokemon deciding that all Pokemon are inherently notable, no matter what WP:N said, or for another example, the editors agreeing on one talk page that negative assertions about that person don't have to be sourced in contravention of WP:BLP. In this instance, an RfC was held at the talk page of the guideline itself and publicized at places where you figure "FLC regulars" would be watching, such as the talk page of Featured List Candidates. There had been no new comments for two days prior to the change and a general consensus that the criteria should change. By your interpretation, editors could effectively filibuster a discussion by not participating in it, which in my mind makes no sense whatsoever. This discussion is tangential to determining if the criteria should change, however; consider my edit as per WP:BRD and let's move on with the discussion. –Grondemar 16:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• To be fair, and I know we're moving on, so take this or leave this, the FLC-community comprises more than four people, as is evident from the number of lists currently nominated, and the additional number of reviewers who have no lists nominated. To suggest a consensus on something as significant as changing the criteria for Wikipedia's finest work (and hence, Wikipedia's most scrutinised work) can be achieved by four or five people in a couple of weeks is wildly optimistic. And I also believe that it would have been courteous to notify FLC contributors (which I see Grondemar is now in the process of doing) as not everyone has the FLC page itself or the FL criteria page watchlisted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone who commented at the previous criteria 3b discussion who hadn't previously posted in this discussion should now be notified. And just for the record, I wasn't the one who started this RfC, otherwise I would have made sure everyone was notified sooner! :-) –Grondemar 16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Grondemar, you've done the right thing, thanks for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. Although in Sandman's defence, I don't get why anyone who cares wouldn't watchlist the main FLC page. In a day the main page and talk page combined average about 4-5 edits. --WFC-- 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I do have it watchlisted, as well as this one. But, when I do have time to go through my watchlist, my main focus these days is articles, and I tend to overlook FLC (sadly). Either way, what happened happened, so let's move on. Thank you Grondemar for notifying others, and I apologize for my slightly harsh tone. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• The edit was hasty but not totally uncalled for, and as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, I'd say that everyone has behaved properly. Moving on, my view is that if the stand alone lists policy doesn't mention things in this particular criteria, then either that policy is wrong, or it is legitimate to question whether 3(b) as-is reflects wider consensus. In either case, content forking is already disallowed, while "does not largely recreate material from another article" is in fairness common sense, and I have never seen it successfully applied as a stand-alone measure (as Sandman will attest to). On reflection, "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" isn't covered anywhere in policy (which in itself speaks volumes), and should therefore remain unless or until it is worked into policy. --WFC-- 17:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, I think our concern should be FLC, not WP:SAL. Lets let the criterion simply state what makes a page among wikipedia's best work. In the past, there were quite a few forks that made it throught FLC, simply because there was nothing in the criteria against it. The criterion should be specific, like the other ones are. You can apply the argument that things that are common sense or part of other policies to just about everything else. For example, 5b says "... and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content", which is also part of the policy, so should we remove that as well? What about 1 "It features professional standards of writing", well that's also common-sense, so perhaps it should go too. Number 2, the lead, is also mentioned in the MOS. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• All of your examples demonstrate what makes an FL superior to a standard list. The caveats in 3(b) are the only part of WP:FL? that have no bearing whatsoever on a list's quality, and that's wrong. The FL criteria should outline what differentiates a featured list from a normal list. Nothing more. If there was a problem with "cheap" lists getting promoted in the past, the problem did not lie with our featured list criteria, but with our list criteria in general. It follows that if removing the fluff in 3(b) threatens a return to unworthy lists being promoted, the issue has still has not been dealt with. Sorry for the third if in a row, but if this criteria has been well established for years, that either means that those who have defended it have done so purely out of resistance to change, or that they have either not tried or not succeeded in getting community-wide consensus to apply these standards of inclusion to all lists. If it's the latter, we are simply shifting the problem elsewhere, and if anything making them worse, because we are knowingly barring lists from FLC whilst acknowledging that they are worthy of being lists, which doesn't make any sense.

• We should either keep the criteria as a strictly temporary measure while we attempt to sort the policy out, or we cut it down to size, because there is not community-wide consensus for the extra hurdles. I've yet to see a convincing case for doing anything else, maintaining the status quo included. --WFC-- 22:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree fully with what User:WFCforLife says above. –Grondemar 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• So would you say this list, where it exactly duplicates the content of another list, or this list, which is rather small and has questionable notability, represent the best wikipedia has to offer? We aren't saying they aren't lists; we're saying they don't meet the criteria of being one of wikipedia's best. Even in normal articles, at least 1/4 (probably more) of all pages will never have enough content to become a FA. I'll use an example: Roseville, Ontario. Small town, not much history to it, will never have enough content to be a FA. Does that mean it doesn't deserve to exist? No, not at all, if it has the notability. You also say "The caveats in 3(b) are the only part of WP:FL? that have no bearing whatsoever on a list's quality, and that's wrong", which isn't true. 5b (media files) also has no actual effect on quality; it is meant to make sure that lists use nonfree media responsibly (which in many cases, actually lowers the quality of articles). And again, I guess our definitions of quality differ vastly. I don't consider a small ten-item list that deplicates content from another page to be a quality article. You almost seem to be confused as to what WP:FL is. It's not meant to be any type of policy and our criterion should have no bearing on policy. It's not meant to give "protection" to articles of limited notability. It's simply a way to recognize the best work. Lets just keep the criteria to defining what makes a page one of wikipedia's best, and leave the bureaucratic nonsense out of it. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• With regards to 5(b), you're right, but making sure that we don't band about copyright violation as being part of our best work is pretty important to the very existence of the site. The foundation relies on us being diligent about copyright to show that while wikipedia can never be free of copyvio, we do take the matter very seriously. Without meaning to be disrespectul, I believe that the bureaucratic nonsense was restored around 24 hours ago. If we weren't bothered about external policy, we wouldn't even link to SAL, because by definition anything that fails that should be deleted. If SAL is a load of bureaucratic nonsense, we should therefore change 3(b) to simply say "It could not reasonably be included as part of a related article or list." --WFC-- 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, trying to participate in a discussion sure is bureaucratic of me. What I meant by "bureacratic nonsense" is that nobody has actually said something along the lines of "I think forks and small lists deserve to be FLs, which is why the criterion needs to go." People seem more concerned about the wording or the effect 3b supposedly has other policies than they are about FLC. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 00:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you had been around much lately, you would be aware that 3(b) is causing more trouble than every other criterion combined, primarily on lists that in your opinion should pass it. Put simply, it's time to re-evaluate. You, alone, were unhappy about us having a discussion and reaching a consensus without your express permission. For what it's worth I agree with your revert- the matter needs further thought. Disagree with the wording or even the aim of changing of it if you must. But don't you dare waltz in blind and imply that we are doing this for anything other than for the purpose of improving the place. --WFC-- 02:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A case in question would be the FLC of the Yankees no hitters. Scorpion agrees above that it's a content fork, but it got promoted regardless, because Scorpion was/is not active and the remaining editors in that FLC along with both directors did not have a problem with the list. The logic was that all of the information could not reasonably be a part of a greater list (List of all no-hitters): thus extra detail/prose exempts lists from 3.b. So it does seem that consensus and the way things works have changed considerably since the criteria was made. Sandman888 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the purpose of FL is to highlight the best possible way to present information. I don't think that can be done in a vacuum, looking only at the list and not any of the surrounding articles which make use of that information. That's how I would interpret criteria 3b: Does this list make sense in a greater context? Nifboy (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep 3b intact. I'm one of those people who got invited here because I was involved in the long discussion that resulted in the formulation of these criteria. I strongly agree with Scorpion0422 that all of the elements of 3b are important to retain. There are plenty of pages around Wikipedia (not all of them lists) that arguably are content forks or could reasonably be included as part of a related article, but that are kept around for good reasons or bad. These types of pages exist, but should not be held forth as examples of Wikipedia's best content. Because content-forking, article-splitting, and list-splitting are seen more commonly with lists than with other types of article-space pages, it is important to emphasize the point that these types of things are not welcome at FLC.

One common issue has to do with the existence of multiple lists of essentially the same topic. To point to examples that aren't FLs: List of metro systems, Metro systems by annual passenger rides, List of bus rapid transit systems, and List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership all have some sort of independent reason to exist in Wikipedia, but we would not want to "feature" them as examples of Wikipedia's best content when there is reason to think that several of them could be combined into one cleverly-formatted and highly informative list. Another example that sticks out in my memory as the kind of situation that this criterion was intended to address is the old FLC discussion Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Walter Byers Scholarship/archive1 (at the time, that relatively short article had been split into a very short topical article and a somewhat longer list). --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But regardless the List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University (and several similar) is featured, though it could be cleverly incorporated into a List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. And yes, it has been to FLRC, closed as keep. So perhaps the above logic does not reflect how things really work anymore.Sandman888 (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason it -- and every guideline on Wikipedia--will sometimes appear not to work is that they all include language that requires judgement. Whether or not something could "reasonably" be included in a more comprehensive list has no fixed meaning. It will depend on what is thought reasonable in the specific case. That's why no guideline actually represent exactly the way things work; the applicability depends as it must on the interpretation by the community. For the example you give, users reasonably enough expect to see lists devoted to specific topics that they can find without needing to sort a more inclusive list. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep 3b intact. - per Orlady. Those are relevant criteria for a featured list. Some of the criteria are criteria for list inclusion altogether; it would be silly for the criteria for a featured list to exclude the criteria that the list is appropriate itself. Parts of 3b may be more stringent than the criteria for lists, but that is ok, featured list criteria should be fairly stringent. And commentary like "If a reviewer feels that a list does not meet these requirements, they should list it for a merge or deletion. In this instance, reviews will ordinarily be paused pending the outcome of the relevant discussion," is unnecessary. That commentary does not represent featured list criteria, just possible process implications. And it is not exhaustive - as noted by others, sometimes the remedy for a 3b issue may be as simple as expanding the prose. Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Break

The above exchange quickly devolved, so let's start over. Okay, maybe I haven't been around, so why don't you give me a list - with examples - of how 3b has hurt the process, and I'll give you a list of ways that I believe it helped. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 18:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• 3b hasn't "hurt the process", it's just moot, as addition of extra prose and detail seem to exempt lists from 3b concerns, at least during the past 9 months I've reviewed lists, see my above comment. I would like the criteria to be crystal clear for all, so that when someone is opposed on 3.b he doesn't have to know that extra detail and a longer lead would alleviate 3b concerns. I don't think that's fair. Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I do agree with you about that. Do you have any more examples of small lists that made it through with a large lead (though, let's not forget that the unofficial minimum table length to become a FL is/used to be ten rows; that has nothing to do with 3b). -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters is another example of content forking alleviated with prose and detail. I also believe the current list of "Huskies bowl games" could reasonably be a part of a list of "List of bowl games" if all the extra detail was trimmed. Apart from that all of the player of the year awards: Ipswich Town F.C. Player of the Year, Norwich City F.C. Player of the Year, Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year, Watford F.C. Player of the Season, List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year could reasonably, in my opinion, be a part of the corresponding "list of players" (which is a part of 3.b as it stands now). The reason they are included, I presume, is because the different awards are notable, but notability is not a list nor featured list criteria, I don't understand why notability should alleviate 3.b concerns (it's two completely different things in my head).
    • We could easily make notability (of list topic) a featured list criteria and make that replace 3.b. That would really streamline the distinction between what is a good and what is not a good example of "wikipedias best work". I'll be the first to admit that my current FLC of Barcelona statistics in Europe will probably not meet a notability criteria, but I'll happily concede that for some more stringent FLC criteria. Also, a non-notable list topic is hardly among the best and most useful works in wikipedia, such a policy could direct more work into basic/vital areas which would be welcomed. Sandman888 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • FLC doesn't over-ride the notabality guidelines. If a page is notable, and meets 3b, then there's no reason why it couldn't become a Featured List. There have been some discussions in the past about a possible notability guideline (For example, here's a very good discussion from FAC [2]) but it's usually decided to just stand by WP:N. However, WP:N doesn't include content forks, which may be about non-notable aspects of notable subject. For example, List of awards won by Coolio. Notable artist, but why is the number of Grammy Awards he received notable? -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (Disclaimer: I only followed this discussion loosely, and I may not be seeing the proper context of the post I'm replying to.) I think you're confusing content forks with spin-offs. List of awards won by Coolio isn't necessarily a content fork, but a summary style spin-off of Coolio. Whether an article is a content fork depends on its content, not on its relation to other articles. As for how much or if at all WP:N applies to spin-offs is still a matter of disagreement. The problem is simply that while the wording of the GNG has consensus, editors do not agree on what "a stand-alone article" is. An example: Is List of Dragon Ball characters a stand-alone article or a child of Dragon Ball? Is Son Goku a stand-alone article or a child of List of Dragon Ball characters? Goodraise 22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
          • • I'm a bit confused here. Do the two of you oppose a FL-criteria that list should have a notable topic (which would preclude all non-notable content forks. e.g. "List of Nobel laureates in physics" would be a notable content fork of List of Nobel laureates)? I did not claim that FLC overrode the GNG, but lists in general do not adhere to the GNG and that is simply true. I've yet to have any success with "this list is about a non-notable topic" at AfD. Loads of articles are about non-notable stuff per se, but accepted as they provide navigational aid, are somehow common-sense topics or for some third reason. I'm a bit confused about the article/spin-off question, why is that relevant to lists? Sandman888 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
              • One brief comment: this discussion should stay focused on the FL criteria, not on what the inclusion criteria for a list should be. There's another RfC on that topic over there. –Grondemar 23:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
                • I supported the criterion when it was added, and am trying to catch up with this discussion. The reason 3b was instituted was that forky lists that didn't need to exist were frequently passing FLC. Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but where in WP:SAL does that guideline say anything against content forks? This section, which attempts to address what lists should be created, strikes me as too vague to be useful for citing in an FLC discussion. For the sake of FL standards, I'm not sure I feel comfortable removing the wording from 3b. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • @Sandman888: I guess I didn't make myself clear up there. Content forks should never be promoted to featured status. They should be deleted. Yes, being a content fork is a reason for deletion. Don't confuse content forking with applying summary style. If you don't understand the difference, please go and read the guidelines. As for getting lists deleted for failing WP:N, I've done it, and that with an AfD footprint as small as mine. However, in my opinion, notability should be kept out of WIAFL, even if the community ever comes to a consensus on what exactly the relationship is between lists and notability. Goodraise 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) -- I can't follow any of the above any more. I just don't understand what the two arguments are! Remove 3b, keep 3b; it's good, it's bad; content forks, legitimate splits; and on, and on, and on.. Can someone use baby words to explain what the problem is, please? :( Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What Goodraise calls a "good split" is when something is too long to be in one article. A "bad split" is when something is split, but not too long, or could be merged into/from a larger list. Recently some list have passed FLC which were "bad splits" but they where considered "good splits" because they had a long lead and a lot of detail. The thing is that any "bad split" can then be converted into a "good split" as it is always possible to lengthen the lead and add extra detail. But it is not clear from the criteria that that is what is intended or the purpose of 3.b. There is also a separate concern whether the deletion process or FLRC is needed for "bad splits", but that is a choice for the individual editor and not set in stone. Sandman888 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Matthewedwards: I have the exact same problem. I only chimed in to correct that abominable misuse of the term content fork (which just might be the reason for this whole RfC). Goodraise 12:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you're the one who doesn't understand what a content fork is. You seem to be forgetting that spin-offs are also dependent on notability, as well as page size. In the Coolio case, his article is a more than acceptable size, and the awards information is small, so to split them off would be content forking. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, whether a spin-off is appropriate is dependent on its notability and size (both with certain limitations). However, being of insufficient size and lacking notability does not make an article a content fork. "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." (WP:CFORK, first sentence)

Seriously, people. It is two not overly long guideline pages (WP:SS and WP:CFORK). It's not too much to ask. Read them, please! Goodraise 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Sandman888: I'm still not sure I understand this right, but it appears to me that you are barking up the wrong tree. Criterion 3b is perfectly clear. It reminds nominators and reviewers of the fact that no list should ever be a content fork. Never. What you actually disagree with is at least several reviewers' opinions on what should be considered a content fork. Neither criterion 3b nor any other part of WIAFL tries or should try to define what that is. The place to do that is here.

Let's dissect the latter part of 3b ("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"). The first part is clear. Content forks fail the criteria. The second part is a restatement of the first. If an article "largely recreate[s] material from another article", then these two articles are largely about the same topic. Multiple articles that are about the same topic form a content fork. Content forks fail the criteria. The third and last part, however, has nothing to do with content forking. It is a reminder that unnecessary splits should be avoided (WP:AVOIDSPLIT). Unfortunately, AVOIDSPLIT cites notability as its reason, which is a problem because the community has yet to agree on what the relation between lists and notability is. The place to work on that is, as Grondemar pointed out above, over there. Goodraise 12:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot make it any clearer than I already have: according to current FLC's, adding extra prose alleviates 3.b concerns. Ipso facto 3.b should be changed to read "the lead and specific details does not largely recreate material from another article and a large enough to make a potential merge infeasible". This is a FLC issue, not about the RFC on lists (which probably ends in nothing anyway). Sandman888 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above comment was modified after I replied to it. Goodraise 16:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC) You apparently think that reviewers find content forks acceptable if enough prose is added. Well, they don't (or at least they shouldn't). What they do find is that such articles no longer are content forks. No reviewer who knows the meaning of the term content fork and is not a troll would ever support the promotion of a content fork to featured status. Goodraise 14:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the examples quoted above, in the start of the FLC, they are not long and will help you understand why 3.b is no longer fit for purpose based on current development in the FLC process. Also 3.b is not solely on content forking/no split but also work the other way around: could it be a part of a larger more coherent article. Sandman888 (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the examples, several times. I still don't get it. Please, finish this sentence for me: "I believe the criterion 3b should be deleted because ..." Goodraise 16:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"... the real concern is not whether the list per se is a content fork, but rather that it has sufficient lead and prose to avoid merge considerations as is" I have tried to communicate that point a couple of times now. Sandman888 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"I have tried to communicate that point a couple of times now." – Hopefully, you've succeeded this time.

So, whether or not a list is a content fork is somehow an unreal concern? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I don't even see what removing 3b would accomplish. I can't think of any case in which I'd switch from oppose to support or from support to oppose if 3b was removed because all it does is restate parts of several guidelines with which all featured lists would still have to comply even if 3b was gone (those guidelines being WP:SAL, WP:SS, and WP:CFORK). As to what you call "the real concern": I assume with that you mean "what reviewers look at in praxis". Well, if there is reviewers who misinterpret the criteria, then what needs to be done is to make them aware of their mistake, not to legitimize it by changing the criteria. Whatever. I guess I still don't understand what your reasons are. So, perhaps you could finish another (slightly different) sentence for me: "I believe the criterion 3b should be deleted because it ..." Goodraise 18:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, a lot of the stuff you cite is not applicable to lists in the same way it is to articles. Look, when the list per se is a content fork of another list (real or hypothetical), the article of the list is not considered a content fork if a long lead and a lot of detail is added. Therefor 3.b gives the wrong impression that making "content forks" renders a list un-electable for 3.b. 1) I would like that consensus to be reflected in the criteria. 2) I would like to have "bad" content forks deleted; if they therefore survive the AfD then it is not a "bad" content fork. Sandman888 (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The featured list criteria (including 3b) are not applicable to "the list per se", but to stand-alone lists as defined by WP:SAL, the first sentence of which states that "Stand-alone lists and 'lists of links' are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists" (emphasis mine). A "list per se" can also not be a content fork as that term as well applies only to whole articles, and not to their components. (See WP:CFORK's first sentence.) Criterion 3b will only give that wrong impression to editors who haven't read the pages it links to. Not the criterion's fault. Goodraise 23:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Break 2—Breaking down the criteria

Once again the discussion above has gotten confusing and convoluted. Since criteria 3b is a long compound sentence I think it would be easier to break down and discuss the criteria point-by-point, to determine what makes sense and what should be changed. –Grondemar 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note to everyone replying—please place your comments in the appropriate sub-section. Thanks. –Grondemar 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

First part—WP:SAL

• (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists...

Personally I think this part makes sense. Any featured list should meet the requirements for all lists. I don't think this part of the criteria is particularly disputed. –Grondemar 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• a bit redundant perhaps, as per WFC above. Sandman888 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - it may be redundant, but it is clear. Better to say it, than just to imply it. --Bejnar (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and reduce 3b to just this. Courcelles 04:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Though seemingly obvious to us, in practice these guidelines aren't always as obvious to everyone (else we wouldn't be here now : ) - jc37 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Per the above, it should be implied (since if something doesn't meet SAL it shouldn't exist at all let alone be an FL) but to be clear. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Second part—WP:CFORK

• ...it is not a content fork...

My reading of WP:CFORK is that what is intended to be prohibited here are either redundant forks, where the list is not a duplicate of another list, or a POV fork, where rather than retaining a WP:NPOV the list take one particular point of view. Are either of these situations common at WP:FLC? Note that the page specifically excludes summary style and related articles with different topics.

I personally think that there's no need for this part to be in criteria 3b. Perhaps it would work better at the very top of the criteria page, where it says the list must meet the requirements for all Wikipedia content? –Grondemar 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

CFORK applies. FLs have to comply with it whether the criteria mention it or not. I'd rather make nominators aware of it by mentioning it. We originally gave it such a prominent place in the criteria to reduce the number of "cookie-cutter" lists that sneak through the process. My vote is to leave the passage where it is. Goodraise 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by "cookie-cutter" lists? –Grondemar 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"List of acquisitions by Company" springs to mind. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Very small lists, all looking the same. If you've never seen the term being used in reference to certain lists, you may find some interesting reads over here: [3][4] Goodraise 23:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Episode lists (particularly seasons of the same show), discogs and awards pages could be considered "cookie cutter", too, but more work and research tends to go into them. It's pretty self explanatory. You have a sheet of cookie dough, and use a cutter to cut out the cookies. You might decorate them slightly differently, with rainbow spinkles, sugar, coconut, but it's the same base. "Cookie cutter" lists use the same base, but have minor differences between them. Different images, different company/episode/album names. But the Lede, table, layout, etc is the same. That's not to say that these types of lists are always bad all the time. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I agree, it is better to say it directly. I'd rather make nominators acutely aware of it by mentioning it. --Bejnar (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If we're going to keep it, we need to be clear that WP:CFORK specifically excludes WP:SS breakouts. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree WP:SS is and should be fine, but isn't it made pretty clear under Wikipedia:CFORK#Acceptable types of forking. Lets face it, 3b seems to be quite long as it is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove, or replace with "Complies with the guidelines for content forking", as being a content fork is not a bad thing in and of itself. Being a POV fork is not, but technically a summary style split is still a "content fork". Courcelles 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Remove - too many case by case nuances here, WP:SS in particular. I would support something like Courcelles' suggestion directly above. - jc37 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Per Goodraise. As with my vote above, this should somewhat be implied (as content forks shouldn't exist, let alone be FLs), but still good to note. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Third part—Re-creation of material from another article

• ...does not largely recreate material from another article...

What exactly is this supposed to mean? I've never understood this part. Arguably this excludes any list split out of an article due to summary style, which I don't think was its intent. –Grondemar 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on breaking this up a bit. Re: Part 3, I think it was meant to mean that you don't get lots of lists with identical leads. IMO that could mean either that lists like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sa–Sc should not have an identical lead to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: Sd–Si (which it does) and should be personalised to the content, or it re-iterates the fact that we shouldn't have redundant forks; I remember List of FIFA World Cup finals had objections because most of the material was in FIFA World Cup. Does that help? PS. If you want this comment to be under the part it relates to feel free to move it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understand this passage, it's redundant to the previous one. If there's two or more articles sharing, say, 80% of their content, then they could probably be merged into one (or at least fewer) article/s. It's basically a form of content forking. As for RR's example, I wouldn't oppose lists for having identical leads (unless they are small). In conclusion, I have no strong feelings about this snippet. Remove it, if you think it's confusing. Keep it, if you think it helps understand the criterion. I really don't care. Goodraise 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That sentence was added because there were FLs that were almost exact duplicates of other lists or articles, but may not have been forks. For example, there were a whole series of articles on Canadian universities (ie. [5]) that were exact duplicates of List of universities in Canada (this is what it looked like before the splits were re-merged). I don't see the harm in leaving this, as it doesn't hurt to clarify, but I would have no problems with it being condensed or removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It meets a need. I thought that the wording was pretty clear, but if wording that others find less confusing can be found, I'd would object -- so long as the point remains. --Bejnar (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Remove or at least clarify that this part only applies if there are two identical copies of the same information. Courcelles 04:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - too vague/unclear as it stands. Even if kept, the word "recreate" in particular, should probably be replaced with "duplicate". - jc37 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reword but keep The spirit of this rule is necessary, but it is unclear. The "List of [Sporting Event]s" and "List of [Sporting Event] MVPs" is a good example of what should be allowed where both have notoriety (List of World Series champions, World Series Most Valuable Player Award). This is a different issue from something that is more like a content fork (maybe this should more just be rolled into the content fork section. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fourth part—Inclusion in a related article

• ...and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.

This part I understand better. It follows the concept behind summary style; if the list article is too long or too detailed to be reasonably included in the main topic article, it makes sense for it to be separate. If the list is just a table that would fit easily into the main topic article, it should be re-merged and not promoted. Perhaps this part could be worded more clearly however? –Grondemar 19:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying, I agree the above got rather muddy. The way I read this sentence is that it's not enough that the list mustn't be a content fork of an existing list, it must neither be a content fork of a possible non-existing list. Sandman888 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I can create a content fork of every list in existence. Therefore, by your reading, every list would fail this criterion. Well, who needs featured lists anyway, right? Goodraise 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • ? Sandman888 (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Could you rephrase that? Goodraise 05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
        • "I can create a content fork of every list in existence." what do you mean? Sandman888 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I meant what I said. To every article in existence, I can go and create a content fork. For example: I can write an article named "Filmography of Clint Eastwood". That article would be a content fork of the featured list Clint Eastwood filmography. If the wording discussed in this section was to be interpreted that way, every featured list (as well as every other list) would fail the criterion. Always. Goodraise 20:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• (OD) Goodraise: I never understand what you mean. I've read the above several times and I have no clue whatsoever the meaning of it is. Sandman888 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To clarify my own position: the "list of club no-hitters" could reasonably be a part of the hypothetical "list of no hitters" as a "list of no hitters" wouldn't be overly long. That is how I interpet the above part. Sandman888 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Now, that makes a lot more sense than what you said above. Probably because this time you didn't use the term content fork. (There's just no way for two people to make sense of one another, if they apply different meanings to the terms they use.) Goodraise 12:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed on your interpretation. I suppose a link to WP:SS wouldn't hurt. Goodraise 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Query So is what you are saying is that this is really about article size? I thought that the concept of an article format (if appropriate) trumping a list format was also involved. --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that's what Grondemar meant. (Although articles no longer have to comply with Wikipedia:Article size, seeing as it is now an editing guideline.) I'd also like to reply to your last sentence, but I'm having trouble making sense of it. Could you rephrase it? Goodraise 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If information can be reasonably conveyed as either a list or an article (restricted sense, i.e. written in complete sentences and organized into paragraphs and sections), then the article format is to be preferred. Exceptions are where the data does not lend itself to article (restricted sense) treatment. Now, you ask, what does that last statement mean? An example may help, if all we know are the U-boot model numbers and the date of each model's first launch, then a list is basically all we can produce. If, however, we know what technical specs distinguish some or all of the various models, and we know some of the history associated with various models, then the article (restricted sense) format would be better, i.e. more informative, more useful. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove This has a purpose, but it is too often abused to view the main articles as they are, not as they will be when things are finished. To use an example, would to be reasonable to shove List of Olympic medalists in modern pentathlon into Modern pentathlon at the Summer Olympics? Perhaps. Would it be productive? No. Because the parent article is nowhere near done, and when someone got around to working on the parent, you'd just be undoing the merge. The purpose of this, if kept, should be to keep people from splitting out short tables and generating an FL, not splitting longer ones out of an as-yet undeveloped parent. Courcelles 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Remove - This is another case by case editorial question that is incredibly subjective. How long is too long, for example? (Also, I'm not sure that I understand why a list which is currently part of an article can't be nommed for featured list. Whether information is part of an article or not would seem to be a question of technical restrictions (or at least a question of subjective choice on the part of one or more editors).) - jc37 18:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment As with part 3 this seems heavily related to the general point on content forks and stand alone lists. If there are sufficient entries to warrant a separate list (A list of champions for an event in it's first year, IE, would be easily incorporated into the main article) then let it be. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Close

I suggest we close this as no consensus. Sandman888 (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has slowed, but I still think there's an opportunity to introduce improvements to the way the criteria is worded. Tomorrow I'll write up my thoughts in detail. –Grondemar 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Break 4—suggested compromise

After reading the comments in the above subsections and considering the problem, I'd like to suggest the following compromise change to the featured list criteria that I hope will address everyone's concerns. My proposal involves splitting the existing criteria 3b into a criteria 3b and 3c, as follows:

Current criterion #3, added by User:NuclearWarfare

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.

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) It meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists.
• (c) It, due to either the number of items in the list or the amount of quality prose, cannot reasonably be included as an embedded list in another article or as part of a larger list. (See the summary style guideline for guidance on when it is appropriate to split a list from a parent article or list.)

Any suggestions to improve the phrasing of the above would be greatly appreciated. –Grondemar 03:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd strike the word "quality" from (c) of this proposal. If there is prose that can or should be stricken for quality concerns, it should be handled under other criteria. Here, it just feels redundant. Also, the sentence order should probably be rearranged, but that's just for readability. Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you meant (c)? I struck the word "quality"; after quick consideration I agree it can be better handled under other criteria. –Grondemar 17:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good, although I do think it's worth mentioning CFork in 3b here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, I think CFORK makes it worse, because then we would have to explain that merging a list into an article on a parent topic doesn't make the list itself a CFORK. BEANS does not apply, as that argument has been made in multiple AfD's of sitting FL's, though not successfully that I've seen. Thus, since policy describes practice, we'd be expected to document that usage. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see this as an improvement over the existing criteria. In particular, I don't seen benefit having the criteria spell out the detail of "either the number of items in the list or the amount of prose" -- that strikes me as overly prescriptive. However, I think that this entire discussion of what criterion 3b means could be distilled into an essay and linked from the "criteria" page. I think that such an essay would be beneficial for contributors who find insufficient explanation in the current criteria -- and creation of an essay would sidestep the need for a revision to the criteria. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Orlady. I don't see what has changed here (especially as Stax is calling for the CFORK bit to be reinserted). I'd prefer to keep criteria simple. If anyone opposes because of 3b it is usually backed up with a reason which makes it clear where there coming from. We don't need to document all possibilites so I'll eventually oppose due to 3(b)(iv). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I added the current criteria above the proposed criteria, just for comparison's sake. I think it's a small improvement over the current criteria, but not that big a deal. I also large agree with the three editors directly above me. NW (Talk) 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with above that I'd just as soon keep the current criteria. I think that Rambo's Revenge hit the nail squarely indicating that specifics come out best in actual practice. --Bejnar (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• I also don't care for the proposed revision. The excess verbiage of 3c is what bothers me. I agree with Orlady about the detail at the start, and I don't think the parenthetical element helps. It just seems like a wordier way of discouraging content forks. I don't see what would be gained here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Not sure of the major difference in (b) and (c) as both seem to be saying "It is a standalone list"? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick-fix proposal

I think that a good way to stay out of dubious content forks is to have an unofficial minimum threshold (different from the 10-items one) that apply to items that could be seen as forks. For example a list of only 17 entries could easily be merged into the parent article, and if balancing might be an issue, then set the tables as auto-collapsable. If there is still an argument against merging, then suggest moving the table into the article [[History of [insert name here]]], and then this table would naturally fall into its subject scope. Nergaal (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

More unofficial rules that a select bunch of us know about. It doesn't sound like a good idea to me (more like a cabal). What do you do about something that is 18 entries or 16 entires. I dislike unofficial rules – personally I don't think current FLC, Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award is long enough (I suspect a former director agrees) but because FT/GTs use the 10-item rule as the line between a list that can be audited and one that must be FLC I'm not going to get into a long protracted discussion over one or two items. We can't have a rule for every situation. Would your proposal need a different rule for "List of and awards and nominations of X" because those tables have an extra column so the threshold should be lower. This rule will always be subjective, we just have to use common sense and give some context nominators understand the concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Close

I suggest this be closed as no consensus. Sandman888 (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Remove citation as criteria

I found List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-15/Features and admins as featured list, unlike the other lists that had been promoted in this edition of the sign post it has only a single citation in the body of the list. I posted {{unrefsect}} on the list. The edit was was reverted. It appears as the list was promoted without citations in the body of the list and a request for citations was reverted as not required, therefore it seems that consensus is that lists do not require citations so citations should be removed from Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a spurious correlation. All featured content requires references. If a general reference covers the information in the body of the list, then it is referenced, and shouldn't be marked as unreferenced. Claiming that the information isn't referenced because it doesn't have inline citations and, therefore by extension, assuming that featured lists do not require references, is - for lack of a better term - nonsense. — KV5 • Talk • 17:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In short, what KV5 said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

{{unrefsect}} says "This section does not cite any references or sources.", I marked it as un-cited. This discussion is about removing citations as a requirement for a featured list. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps the template needs to be reworked or used more intelligently. Or are you advocating the removal of general references from all of Wikipedia? Perhaps an alternative is to add a statement within the section you find so lacking in reference that says "Information in this section is referenced by the general references" which is, in my mind, a little like teaching Granny to suck eggs. Alternatively, for lists, we could reuse the same reference (as a specific ref) time after time after time. Which, of course, is undesirable. That is why we advocate general references. We have citations, just general ones, as I am sure, with your experience, you are aware. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Citations are still, always have been, and will continue to be, requirements for a featured lists. There are plenty of citations in the lede of that article. Just because the list content is covered by a general reference rather than single inline citations does not mean that a source is not cited. In the guideline linked from that template (WP:Citing sources), it states that "A "citation" is a line of text that identifies a source; for example, Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1." It does not say how this information must be presented. In short, the source is cited, as a general reference, and this discussion is moot. — KV5 • Talk • 18:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what KV5 said.—Chris!_c/t 20:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

<ref name="NAME"/> can be used to list multiple usages of the same reference, I have it listed at User:Jeepday/Cite if you have any questions about its application. I am not advocating of the removal of reference from Wikipedia, in fact I personally advocate the inclusion of references regularly. I had actually hoped to use the recent batch of FA lists as examples in a discusion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Unreferenced_articles#Articles_that_don.27t_lend_themselves_to_referencing. But the quality of citation in the body of List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners is so poor that I assumed this group was advocating the end of citations. First I can't believe that a list reaches FA status with only a single inline citation in the body of the list, then I am shocked to have tags for the inclusion of citations removed. Additionally each section of the list includes a link to sub page that is poorly cited and incompletely referenced. In this edit we learn that "the second general reference covers them all. not unreferenced" so apparently a single source written in a language different then the article is sufficient to meet WP:V for a featured list? This group needs to reevaluate if " A featured list exemplifies our very best work." is a true or if the goal is to just get another star on user page. Jeepday (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh get over it. A non-English source is not verifiable? now you're just spouting whatever you see fit in a shocking attempt to pursue your agenda here. You clearly need to assume a lot more good faith, especially as an admin. StrPby (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin nor agenda has anything do with it. Featured articles should be the best of Wikipedia. If the best is removing requesting for citations on List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners, then best has reached its low. Are you really advocating that a single un-cited source is the exception expectation for list content of a featured article. The other articles were well referenced, should we lower the standards of reference and citation to those set by List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners? Jeepday (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are you saying that the condition of sub-pages should have bearing on whether a piece of content is featured or not? I can't believe that should ever be a factor. Those of us who review articles/lists are reviewing what is in front of us, not what a given page links to. Nothing would ever get featured otherwide, as there are always going to be some pages not as fully developed as others. As long as what is being reviewed meets the standards, that should be all that matters. I also think the general referencing is sufficient for this particular list; it seems pointless to me to have eight headings above the tables citing the exact same sources. I'd like to think that if we have general sources in list articles, readers will be able to realize that they are meant to source the lists themselves. Also, non-English sources are perfectly valid, as long as they are reliable (at least that's my view). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am saying the body of the list, which has become a featured article is poorly referenced. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners which is the list minus the stubbish article content at the beginning of the list. Additionally the sections which link to main articles on the subject are poorly referenced. In short the "List" content of A featured list exemplifies our very best work." should in my opinion do more then barely meet the requirements of WP:V. Is Wikipedia:Featured list criteria a path to getting an FA star for a stub article or is about quality well referenced lists? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, different tact. Rather than the completely "subjective" "exemplifies are very best work" as we are on the criteria talk page can you state what part of the criteria this fails. It passes WP:V and the source is a reliable one. Sure it could more of a harvard style and say more specific pages but (although that would probably be a small improvement) it doesn't change the sources on which this is based. Additionally, one could put

"Search all olympic medallists".

Set search options to: Olympic Games: "Winter Olympic Game" and "Garmisch-Partenkirchen 1936" and click search

Infact, you could customise and individual search instruction for each sport and link directly to it [6] displays all the Ice Hockey medalist. However, won't a general ref suffice? I managed to work it out. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Below are the 5 featured lists promoted per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-15/Features and admins, all of them but one has multiple in line citations in the body of the list. Four of them exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, one does not. Where is the bar set to achieve FA status the four good example or the one poor one. Does anyone really think that Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria? Does adding a well referenced stub to the top suddenly make it feature quality? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Some FAs have 200+ refs some have just 9. But other lists and counting references is completely irrelevent. Care to actually answer my question? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we all get the idea you "don't like" the 1936 list. You really don't need to drive that particular point home any further. But a couple of us have given you some practical (and impractical) solutions to the "problem" you seem to have identified. Please start answering us or I'll move to consider this trolling, particularly as you are perfectly well aware that the featured list process "does" take referencing seriously. Find something in the Olympics list that isn't referenced by the specific references or the general references and I'll eat my hat, my coat, my scarf, my mittens and my bobsleigh. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Which question have I not addressed? The point is that Wikipedia:Featured list criteria requires citations, Citations where not inlcuded in the list when it was promoted to FA. The policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, I challenged the material when I tagged as needing citations. The burden to support is not on me to read through a book or search through a web page to find content that is not supported. I offered two suggestions, bring the FA article List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners up to Featured list criteria (include citations) or bring the criteria down to the article (remove citations as criteria). I have suggested both, general references are not inline citations. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you seem to be in the minority with your suggestion that it is unacceptable to use general references which, if used per your suggestion (i.e. multiple times, I guess in this case you would want one per fact, so I guess we'd use that reference, say, 48 times?) would create a referencing mess. There appears a clear consensus here (so far) that you stand alone in your belief that the 1936 winners list is not referenced. For whatever it might be worth, we do have a process for reviewing the suitability of lists against criteria, called WP:FLRC, and quite obviously you are at liberty to exercise that process. This discussion seems to have stalled. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Done; Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners/archive1, (with some help from "The Rambling Man" on formatting, thank you:) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured lists

Copied from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-15/Features and admins

The ordination certificate of a 9th-century Japanese Buddhist monk, from the new FL List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents)

Five lists were promoted:

• List of Denver RTD light rail stations (nom) (nominated by Patriarca12)
• List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy (nom) (Sturmvogel 66)
• List of awards and nominations received by The Bill (nom) (HJ Mitchell, Courcelles, and JuneGloom07)
• List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) (nom) (Bamse)
• List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners (nom) (Strange Passerby and Courcelles)

Do you get mad if there is too much "article" and am I allowed to have sections within the "article" part of my FL?

The Article People get angry if there is too much list in an article. Do the List People get mad with too much article? It's definitely more "list" than it is "article". Yet, when I've got 10+ paragraphs, I would like to put sections into the text. I'm worried there will be no home for this little reptile! [7]TCO (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If your article is mainly prose, it goes to WP:FAC and becomes a featured article. If its main component is a list or if lists make up a great deal of its size, it's sent to WP:FLC to become a featured list. We "list people" will usually just take whatever the "article people" find too "listy". So don't worry. Goodraise 06:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How short is too short for a star?

three items? TCO (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably be too short. Is there no other article/list you can merge that into? List of U.S. state mammals, perhaps? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It could go into mammals. You could put dogs into mammals too. Would be a huge article really. That thing is a mess now with how complex the table is (showing subspecialties). I think it's probably fine to leave as a separate article, but just say not star-worthy. TCO (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I dunno, by my count 11 states have "marine mammals" (depending if you count the likes of CT's state mammal there) and it's not a SAL. What makes bats special? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I know of least two separate external "state symbol" sources who break it out that way. You could break out marine mammals. That mammal article is kind of a mess, so I wouldn't say status quo is the argument. Can see different ways to go. Dogs has it's own list, also. TCO (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Difference between a list and an article?

I'm working on our list guidelines - WP:EMBED, WP:STAND and WP:LIST, and tidying them up and making sure they match each other in what they say. Lists are a sequenced number of items which are related to the same topic - these items can be placed in a simple bulleted list, or in a more complex table. When a list appears in an article, we term it an embedded list, when the article is primarily a list (that is, when there is more list than prose), we call it a standalone list. At least that was my understanding. When looking at some Featured Lists to get a feel for what we regard as the best examples of stand-alone lists I noticed a number of FLs that are articles which contain an embedded list, such as U.S. state reptiles, 30 Rock (season 1) (there are a number of these), and Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration.

How do you folks define a list, and what makes the above examples lists rather than articles with embedded lists? In the FL criteria you link to WP:STANDALONE, by saying "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists". The first sentence of WP:STANDALONE is "Stand-alone lists are articles that primarily consist of lists of links, data or information." Are these two sentences compatible? In the examples above, are the FL reviewers only examining the list features, or do they assess the whole page? And when do they make a judgement that a page is more of an article than a list, and so is not appropriate for FL - or do reviewers also assess embedded lists, so that FL covers both stand-alone and embedded lists? I note that the above examples are not called "List of ..." or some other common term identifying them as lists so are more likely to be article, which makes me wonder if you folks are by consensus and usage including embedded lists as part of FL, though have not yet got round to formalising that in your criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Embedded lists are part of an article. Stand-alone lists are articles containing at least one embedded list (though not all articles containing an embedded list are stand-alone lists). Featured list status can only be awarded to articles, not their components. While there is a clear distinction between articles and disambiguation pages, there is no such distinction between stand-alone lists and normal articles. In practice, we leave it to the reviewers at WP:FAC. What's too "listy" for them, comes to us. Goodraise 14:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Goodraise. Are you saying that as long as an article contains a list you will review it as a FL? What about this "not all articles containing an embedded list are stand-alone lists"? At what point, for you, would an article containing an embedded list not qualify as a stand-alone list? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You're asking me to draw a line between sandy water and wet sand. Well, let me try. I'd say an article containing only one embedded list should only be considered a stand-alone list if that embedded list is the focus of the article's attention. We have a featured list called List of French monarchs. I can also picture an article containing less detailed tables but with more explanatory text. Perhaps a section on the history of the title, a section explaining what distinguishes the French monarchs from those of other countries, and so forth. I'd place such an article at Monarchs of France instead. And I can also picture a third article dealing primarily with the title of King of France or Queen of France, wherein the people who actually held that title are not all that important. That wouldn't be a stand-alone list in my mind. More generally speaking, I think, to qualify as a stand-alone list, an article needs to have what I'd call a "list character". Assuming you managed to change every section of France to table form, I might be convinced that it's a stand-alone list. On the other hand there is articles containing nothing but prose and they're still stand-alone lists as far as I'm concerned. List of Naruto characters comes to mind. Anyway, while I'm sitting here squeezing my brain to come up with some sort of definition, I'm wondering something myself. Why do you even want to have such a definition? The editor of an article should try to present information in the best possible way. Sometimes that means an article becomes more "listy", sometimes less. What's the harm of having a gray area? Goodraise 16:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Goodraise. Very useful. The example of List of Naruto characters is interesting, and what you say about "list character" makes sense in a way. When tidying up WP:EMBED we looked into the various forms of lists, and for when a list approach was more useful to the general reader than prose, and for when prose was more useful than a list. What you call "list character" would presumably be when it would be more useful to present material in a list fashion. The "grey area" you talk about, would likely be when information is better presented as a "definition list", which is information presented in list format, but with detailed prose explanation - such as List of Naruto characters. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Um yeah, case by case. What's the stress? More often than not, if a FAC gets kicked out for being too "listy", we'll welcome it here at FLC. No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to stress anyone Rambling Man, and I apologise if the question has given you that impression. I am not actually interested in Featured Lists as such, I'm looking to brush up our guidance on lists in general, and thought that FL might have something to offer on what makes a good list - as part of that, I'm interested in how folks here define a list. If our guideline's description of "articles that primarily consist of lists" is not, for you folks, appropriate or accurate, then - as you guys spend more time critically examining lists than anyone else - it might be worth revisiting that description and getting input from the list experts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

small size and merging

Based on the FLC for 20–20–20 club, I have concerns that the FLCR 3b criteria of "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." could be seen as a loophole to prevent small lists from being promoted. FLCR has no specific minimum size guidelines. In this particular FLC, 3b was cited by opposers, but there was no consensus on a related article it could be merged to, or a new article that should be created.

Is it sufficient to decline promotion when support for promotion exists, but opposition suggests that it could "reasonably be included ..." without successfully demonstrating the destination article in the merge? I'm not looking to overturn this specific FLC per se; I'm more interested in a similar future FLC having clearer guidance on size and discussion guidelines on minimum expectations for citing 3b when opposing.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that opposes along this line should come with a suggested merge destination, but a lack of consensus for such a merge should not invalidate such an oppose. FLC and FLRC serve to identify our very best work, not to create it. Merge discussions should be held on article talk pages. Goodraise 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:FLC asks for "a specific rationale that can be addressed". A merge proposal with with no destination seems akin to a comment to "write it better" without specifics for improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is it you want? Goodraise 00:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some verbage added to either WP:FLC or here to the effect of "In FLC discussions where consensus is unclear, opposition that cites FLCR 3b stating the list could "reasonably be included as part of a related article" will have less impact if there is no consensus on a reasonable destination article." This would allow for uncontested application of 3b, while also addressing application of 3b that is disputed.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of having directors was to make decisions of this nature through good judgement. Reading and evaluating consensus is the primary responsibility of the directors. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

My intent was to help the participants, not necessarily the directors. The FLC left an open question among participants of whether an actionable item exists if the target file is in dispute. It might have saved a lot of discussion among participants if this was clear one way or another, and discussion might have reached a closure in less than 1.5 months.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think compiling a list of how much weight what kind of oppose will carry under what conditions is a direction we should go. Nominations are closed by intelligent beings. Reviewers should be treated as such as well. Instead of trying to invalidate opposers' arguments one should try to convince them to change their opinion. Making nominations take less time is a goal worth pursuing, but this isn't the way. I'm also not inclined to agree that whether or not a consensus to merge exists should be taken into consideration. Reviewers can be expected to name specifically what problems they see a list as having, but finding ways to solve them is asked too much. A criterion 3b oppose should no more obligate a reviewer to initiate a merge discussion than a criterion 1 oppose obligates him or her to copy-edit an article. Again, we're not here to create Wikipedia's best content, just to identify it. Goodraise 04:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A criteria 1 oppose would at least be expected to mention some specific examples about the article being unprofessional. The difficulty I am having with 3b is that there were no viable examples of where the article could be merged. Unfortunately, reviewers might not have domain expertise to determine an appropriate merge. Perhaps suspicion is the best we can do in this case, which would be unsettling if it were to be used as a loophole for a minimum length requirement.—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't want reviewers with a set opinion that lists of less than X items should not be featured to get away with opposing based on criterion 3b, is that it? I'm afraid we'll have to rely on closers to see through such attempts to abuse the criterion. A nominator should have the necessary domain expertise to make a convincing case for a list's stand-alone existence even to reviewers (and closers) who lack that expertise. When good arguments fall on deaf ears, then maybe they aren't that great after all, or, if deceitful, criterion-abusing reviewers are simply too numerous to be ignored and too crafty to expose themselves, then perhaps creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit was doomed from the beginning. Goodraise 04:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Commons and copyright

I'd like to hear the FL crowd's opinion. Do we care whether media files stored on Commons meet Commons' policy? I don't know how things are handled at FAC, but featured lists tend to include a lot more media files than featured articles, so we might want to be a little bit stricter than them. Treating media files as if they were stored locally and only requiring them to meet the English Wikipedia's policies would have several advantages and disadvantages. The one significant pro I can think of is that it would mean less workload on image reviewers. The cons include that ignoring Commons policy would set a bad example and that files in violation of Commons policy might be deleted without anyone noticing. Conceivably, a list filled with pictures of buildings in a country without freedom of panorama, for example, might suddenly find itself populated by nothing but File:Red files.png. Thoughts? Goodraise 15:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we do have a responsibility to check the suitability of media files, regardless of where they're hosted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Embedded lists and featured list criteria

There has been some discussion about the inclusion of lists of companies embedded in business articles, specifically companies as providers of Backend as a service. I've suggested at Talk:Backend as a service#Revisiting the issue of company name inclusion that embedded lists of companies in business articles should conform to the Featured List Criteria. Wondering if someone involved in the development of this guideline could weigh in on the suitability of this suggestion. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Commented there. Goodraise 02:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A standalone list or an article with embedded lists

Hi all! I'd like to invite more comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#A list or a regular article? to help draw a line between sandy water and wet sand in respect of the Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Help needed over lists issue

Hi, this isn't directly related to FLCs so I'm sorry for posting here. But I'd really like some input from users experienced in lists. I've started a discussion at WP:ACTOR questioning whether it is appropriate for "List of awards and nominations received by X" articles to be comprehensive, or should they be limited re WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Does this policy even apply to lists, given that one of the FLC criteria is that "where practical, a complete set of items" be included? One user has been removing material from awards lists based on this policy, but I disagree with it. The discussion can be found here. I'd very much appreciate input from those involved at FLC. Thanks! --Loeba (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility as criterion

Re: "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.

(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked."

The manual of style includes MOS:ACCESS, yet some lists are:

- not accessible, for example:

-- use color as the only indicator of meaning, as in the Baryon J P column in the first table

-- or use layout table in a non-accessible manner, as in an older version of the 86th Academy Awards as opposed to the current, accessible version of the 86th Academy Awards

...or could have accessibility improved:

- have non-unique identifier in the first column where another column which does have unique, meaningful content, is in a later column, as in Leuchenberg Gallery where the Painter (non-unique) is in the first column and the Work is in the third (mostly or completely unique). The Work would better be the first column and the Painter the second.

Is accessibility, a Manual of Style specification, a criterion for Featured List? Shall it be?

Posting question to Village Pump (policy) Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If a list is not accessible, this can interfere with the ability of a blind or color-blind person to use, edit and verify lists within Wikipedia. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that accessibility standards might prevent certain desirable characteristics. I can't tell if that actually happens or not, I'm just concerned. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Lists

There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)