Wikipedia talk:Featured lists/Archive 1

Title

Since all of the lists are prefixed with "List of X" would anyone object if I removed the list of in front of every article listed here? It is going to get very redundant and very repetetive very soon. This link is Broken 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I'm just going to be Bold and do it, actually)

• So far, timelines, a line of succession, and a few other non-"list of X" articles have been nominated. How would we deal with them? --Dmcdevit 03:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I suggest we suppress "list of" but use the full name of articles that do not start "list of". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured lists on the Main Page

What would it take to get featured lists to actually be featured on the Main Page???? [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the featured lists you need lots of pictures, or good annotation, or put it in a well-maintained table format. I'm not sure how you can get pictures relevant to a list of lists. As for tables I'm not sure that'd help anything. Annotation would likely be unnecessary, but maybe possible.

I hope someday a list I created or worked industriously on gets to be here.--T. Anthony 10:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(This was brought up at Talk:Main page#Featured Lists.) Now that there are 130 Featured Lists, with ~10 added per month, putting them on the main page seems like a potentially great idea. You can't do it every day because they don't come that often, unless you do it like Featured Pictures, with the list starting over when it's run through. Or it could be done only on weekends like Featured Pictures used to be done. Any thoughts? Whatever gets on the Main Page might mean trimming something else, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what happened at this proposal. The FA-diehards seem to don't want to add FLs in the Main Page. Then if this is the case, then we should really rename this into Wikipedia:Showcased lists or Wikipedia:Best lists, or any title we can think of, because the lists here, aren't really featured. --Howard the Duck 05:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

Why is List of lists of mathematical topics in a section labled Science? Math is, well, math. Although it is heavily used by science, it is not science. I'm going ahead and changing it. --Tox 12:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Very Few Here

I noticed that we have way more articles featured than lists. Is this because lists are harder to produce in general, or is the citeria harder to become a FL, or is it just by chance? Tobyk777 02:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It is because the Featured article process started with Brilliant Prose back in 2002, but Wikipedia:Featured lists was only set up in May 2005. If anything, the standards for lists are slightly lower than those for articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved California Hurricanes

I've moved List of California hurricanes into the History section (from Geography) per the standard for featured hurricane articles. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië)

Fishing for comments

I don't want to nominate them as these were up for deletion not that long ago, but I guess I would like to draw attention to them. First there's List of Catholic authors. This wasn't created by me and it's been largely a group effort so I feel better about mentioning it. I personally feel kind of proud of the List of Christian thinkers in science. I have received help of late and I don't mean to belittle those who did. That said I think it's fair to say this one has largely been my project.

I'm also mentioning these as I'm hoping to relay ideas on further ways to improve either or both.--T. Anthony 11:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fishing for compliments? That's dangerous:) You may get some constructive comments though: The first one is in desperate need of references. On first view, the second one looks better, though it's not 100% clear to me what determines whether someone is or isn't included, jguk 11:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed the title. I'll relay that information to the page on the first one. On the second one it's people who made contributions to religious and scientific work. Admittedly there are a few borderline names on it though.--T. Anthony 12:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if we want Catholic lists, List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy and List of Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II have been on my featured wishlist for ages. Having added a reference, I was about to nominate the second yeserday when I noticed the rather embarassing redlinks (10 out of 14)... -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start a Request for comments type page for prospective Featured Lists - as our criteria are quite different than those for featured articles. Also perhaps a list of quite good lists? Rmhermen 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Featured list

similarly to {{Featured article}}, I created {{Featured list}} which puts a star on the upper right corner of a featured list. I've marked all the FL with this template. CG 21:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Municipalities of Lithuania

Why isn't List of municipalities of Lithuania in the geography section? Afonso Silva 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

List of notable brain tumor patients

I'd really rather see this categorized as a list of people than as a medical list. Durova 21:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Users

I created a List of Wikipedians by Featured Lists successfully nominated. I believe that there are no inaccuracies. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There is also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations (both slightly out of date, I believe). -- ALoan (Talk) 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

100th FL

I've only just realised, but given that two lists were previously demoted, the 100th list to be promoted to be a featured list was List of municipalities of Portugal, which I promoted earlier today. We lost a third list today, so we are back to 98 again.

If all goes well, the list should get to 100 entries with the 103rd list to be featured, which will either be List of Formula One drivers next Monday 10 April (if objections to List of Presidents of Liberia are resolved so it is promoted first) or, more likely, List of Alberta premiers next Friday 14 April. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sections of certain lists

Shouldn't French Monarchs and Portuguese Monarchs go in a "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry" section, while Battles of the Mexican-American War goes into the "War" section? Currently, they are all in the "History" section. If no one opposes, I'll put the three lists in question into my proposed new sections (which are will just be uncommented and use the terms of the featured articles page). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sure - go ahead. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't the football-related lists be lumped back into the "Other lists" section because it groups association and american football together, and those are quite different sports. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

List namespace

I think we need to have seperate namespace (e.g. List) for lists. I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. If you have any ideas, please comment there. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Lists" are just articles with lists in them. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Football

If the football category is not just soccer, as it has NFL content, should rugby football (Tri Nations Series champions) be in there as well? Cvene64 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be putting tri nations champs at football, in case somebody disagrees, just revert it. --Howard the Duck 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok i split football American and Football every where else in the world into two categories. hope this fixes the problemTrey 05:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed at this, but I guess it would be fine. Also changed Football-related lists: into Football (soccer)-related lists: following the article title "Football (soccer)". --Howard the Duck 04:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why you would be opposed they are two completly different sports. No one would combine a list that includes cricket and baseball and call it one sport. And i left it as Football not football soccer since the huge majority of the world thinks of as football as soccer.

Well, these sports all derived from Football. I dunno about cricket and baseball (I think they're differently derived). Also, we have to match the article name. Currently, its "Football (soccer)" so it should stay that way. Also, Tri Nations Series champions and Super 12 champions were previously at "Football-related lists", so it would cause further confusion, so I moved them to "Other lists". Or we can move both "Football (soccer)-related lists" and "American football-related lists" into "Other lists" since they're few. The reason why Cricket was segregated was that it has many FLs. And BTW, next time, sign your posts using ~~~~. --Howard the Duck 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the subdivisions within FL categories are completely arbitrary, we do not have to follow article naming conventions. Also the MoS is not mandatory for the Wikipedia namespace, in case you were wondering. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although the readers won't have to be confused with one "Football-related" list, then on the next section we have "American football-related" list. And even though it is not mandatory, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow it. Besides, this is the FL page, and we have to present this page like it is a "featured page".

I'd rather go with the previous convention (all football codes merged in one "Football-related" list category, or we place tem in the "Other list" category. --Howard the Duck 05:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know where you got the idea that we have to present the FL page as a "featured" page itself, but I think you are reading too much into the concept. If we judge we have too many lists of one kind we clump them together to make navigation easier, but we don't have to do that at all (see the FA page). It's that simple. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a list of featured lists, it is corollary that we'd have to present this page in the highest of standards, at par with the lists they present. --Howard the Duck 07:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem here at all. Really I wouldn't mind breaking out the other list into each sport even if their is only one list under it. I think that would make navigating the list easier than having swimming and rugby under one big catch-all topic. And I deeply and profusely apologize for forgetting the tines at the end of my last post, 500 some edits and I finally forgot the tines... I’m surprised the world didn’t end right then and thereTrey 17:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll support the classification of each list by sport/game.

Apology accepted. --Howard the Duck 07:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Release Version 0.5

Featured lists are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New collaboration

Would you consider creating a "List Collaboration of the Week" which aims at improving lists to the FL status? CG 17:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Maurreen 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to all featured lists

If you look at the featured lists section of the feature content page you will see that it is currently just a big list of the lists... basically a condensed version of this page. It would be preferable to instead have that page display just one randomly selected list on each page view, as it currently does for featured articles and pictures. However, there is no way to do so currently. To this end I'd like to propose that we put <includeonly> tags, or 'FeaturedStart' / 'FeaturedEnd' templates which do nothing but place those tags and have an explanation of why on the template page, around the header paragraph(s) of each featured list. This would not change the display of the featured list page at all, but if a featured list page were then transcluded only the header paragraph(s) would show up... like we currently show just the header for featured articles. This would allow the featured content page to display the lead-in for one randomly selected list with a link to the full list - just as we do for featured articles (though that is accomplished a different way). Thoughts? --CBD 19:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

While this is a nice idea, the problem is that in many cases the lead paragraph(s) is/are only one or two lines long, especially in the older lists. In many other cases the lead only goes over the inclusion criteria, which makes for quite boring reading, because the rest of the interesting text is spread over the list.

My guess is that in many cases you won't have enough text to entertain the reader. A better idea would be to manually select the FLs that have enough text/background info and just use that subset for the Portal. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of pages to be accessed has to be put together manually anyway for the randomization logic to work. Thus, excluding some pages would be no additional effort. Though I'd think we might want to try displaying a different section of the page for such lists or updating them. Maybe instead of the header we should always display a few entries from each list. --CBD 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you choose I'm all for it as long as it helps to improve the Featured Content portal. My guess is that you'll end up using a combination of the methods described above. There are some lists that cannot be "updated" (e.g. the lists of chemical elements) and for some others it would be interesting to display a few entries (I'm thinking lists of incumbents for instance). At the end it would be nice if you kept somewhere a record of the lists you've selected. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are really asking for a Featured List Of The Day/Week/Month, with an excerpt from the header, an image, and a sample from the actual list. It would be a bit of effort to set up, but would be useful here, could be added to user/talk pages, and would give us something to show as a possible contender for a slot on the Main Page... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's in essence how I understood it as well. I was pointing out above some of the implementation issues he will come across, since I think CBD wanted to semi-automate the process. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

POTD and TFA are semi-automatic, in that the templates, etc, are all set up, but the content has to be created by hand, in advance. Would could do a similar thing. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, a 'List of the day' following the traditional setup would work by creating a new page for each list which is formatted to look nice specifically for that list. Exactly as we currently have pages like Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 15, 2006 for each picture/article of the day. That could be done, but as you note it would take some time to set up and then a while longer to build up an 'archive' of list pages which could be selected from randomly. What I was suggesting was actually to go directly to the existing list articles and put in markers on each to specify a specific section (or sections) to display on the Featured content page. For example, this diff shows me placing such 'markers' on a copy of one of the current featured lists. At User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox you can see that these markers have no impact on the article itself, but when transcluded, as at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox2, you get a nice little 'blurb' with just the specifically marked elements. Advantages are that it is easier to set up (no separate pages) and automatically updates when the list page does... for instance if the number of reactors for a country is updated this would display the new value while a separate page would continue to display the old. Disadvantage is that if someone removes or changes the tags it would mess up the display of the 'blurb'. I could put the 'markers' into templates to make them less likely to be messed with, but ultimately it comes down to whether people think this is a workable approach. This method could also be used for a 'List of the day' by just changing the page to link to each day. Probably wouldn't be workable for the Main page though because vandalism to the list page would then be transferred to the Main page. --CBD 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the proposal if someone has the time to implement it. Durova 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented this on three of the featured lists as a test case. See Wikipedia:Featured content for the actual display (refresh / purge cache to see the displayed list change - though with only three you may need to try a few times), this for an example of updating the number of pages which can be displayed from 1 to 3, and this for an example of changes needed to the featured list page itself to display properly. If people are ok with this and there aren't alot of problems with the inclusion tags getting moved around we can look into fully implementing this. --CBD 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I think you should also provide a link to the list below the table itself (ala the "read more" link at the end of the FA blurb). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pondering whether it should be there or in the section title (where it is currently)... but both probably wouldn't hurt. --CBD 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I was just looking at Wikipedia talk:Featured content and saw that User:Howard the Duck has a mock-up of a "Featured list of the month" on his user page! See below. I guess this was done by hand. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This month's featured list The seal of the President of the Philippines. This a complete list of Presidents of the Philippines that consists of the 14 heads of state in the history of the Philippines. The list includes Presidents who were inaugurated as President of the Philippines following the ratification of a constitution that explicitly declares the existence of the Philippines. For leaders of the Philippines prior to the ratification of the 1899 constitution, see Royal Governor of the Philippines. For leaders prior to the ratification of the 1935 constitution, see Governor-General of the Philippines. Note that the Presidents under the Commonwealth of the Philippines were under American administration, and that of the Second Republic is considered to be a puppet government of the Japanese during World War II. # President Took office Left office Party Vice President Term Era 1 Emilio Aguinaldo January 23, 1899 April 1, 1901 none (Magdalo faction of the Katipunan) none (The 1899 Constitution did not provide a Vice President) - First Dictatorship First Republic 2 Manuel L. Quezon November 15, 1935 August 1, 1944 Nacionalista Sergio Osmeña 1 Commonwealth 2 3 José P. Laurel October 14, 1943 August 14, 1945 Kalibapi (Caretaker government under Japanese occupation) none (The 1943 Constitution did not provide a Vice President.) - Second Republic (continued...)

Implementation

The 'random featured list' on Wikipedia:Featured content has been active for about a week now without any problems so I'm going to go ahead and start slowly increasing the number of featured lists which are set up to work with this. You could leverage that to do a 'featured list of the month' or create individual pages like the example above... in which case I'd probably switch to using those separate pages once enough of them had built up to provide a large selection for the random generator. --CBD 18:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Please don't forget to direct editors who may be confused by your actions to this talk page. Good luck! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay. Just saw my list a while ago at WP:FC. --Howard the Duck 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Can you omit the references? Or is it OK that they're displayed? --Howard the Duck 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've run into a few display issues like that. We could omit references, but in many cases it would require bracketing them with 'noinclude' tags (or closing and then re-opening 'onlyinclude' tags around them)... which might increase the likelihood of confusion or problems if the references get changed. A couple of the lists have been edited since I expanded the list (up to 20 now) without problems so maybe it'll be ok. As time goes on and people get more familiar with this concept I hope those who actually work on the lists will make these decisions on where/how to place the inclusion tags. I've been trying to decide whether or not it is important to include the table 'key', how much of the header text to include, whether to bring in pictures - and which ones, et cetera... all tasks which would be better handled by the people who know the subject. It is actually very flexible in what you can choose to display / not display, but the more complicated you make it the more tags are involved and the more you'd really want the page regulars to be running the show. I can set up a test page so that it would be easy to see what adjustments to the inclusion tags would look like in the final presentation if people are intereested. Otherwise, let me know which list and what you'd like changed and I'll try to do so. I'll take a look at the references now to see if there are any which can be easily taken out. --CBD 10:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the test template. See {{list preview}} for instructions on how to use it. Basically, that template will display how any list it is added to will appear on Wikipedia:Featured content. Only problem is that it displays the currently saved version - so you have to put in the inclusion tags, save it, and then use this template. Still, quick way to see what it will look like rather than waiting for the right random list to come up. --CBD 11:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

List Namespace

A discussion is going on here to introduce seperate namespace. A request to bugzilla (7561) also have been made for this. Your response is invited on the proposal page. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this was defeated. --Howard the Duck 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Withdrawn by nom. See archived discussion. --Quiddity 17:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book Two episodes

I was on New Page patrol, and I came across this page, which is apparently a featured list. That set off alarm bells, but, looking at the article, it seemed to be pretty legitimate. Is it a featured list, has it been mistakenly said to be so, or is someone trying to bypass the need to nominate deliberately? J Milburn 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, its sister article List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes. J Milburn 15:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also another. I have made contact with an editor who was involved in writing the original list- turns out someone decided that there should be three lists, when originally there was one. As the original was featured, the new editor decided the three news ones were as well. I think that the articles have now been nominated for deletion. J Milburn 16:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I have started talking about these articles here, I may as well say that the deletion debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender Book One episodes. J Milburn 19:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Front Page?

Why aren't featured lists on the front page? Just H 02:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing because it would look... odd... Maybe we could at least get a link? -- Ned Scott 04:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no technical reason why not – they appear on Wikipedia:Featured content in abbreviated form. See Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Featured lists and portals on the Main Page, Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Featured? lists and Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Wikipedia:Featured lists for the most recent attempts achieve this. Colin°^Talk 11:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am wondering about that too. Featured lists have the same quality information with FA. Furthermore, FL is really harder work than FA/FP. Why can't FL in the front page? I don't think it will make the main page looks odd. — Indon (reply) — 12:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

number of FLs

We need a way to keep track of the total number of FLs when users don't update the number at the top of the page. I'm thinking that in each section on the WP:FL page we can write the number of lists in that section so the whole thing would be easy to count. --Arctic Gnome 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been done at Wikipedia:Featured articles using the Jmax bot. We should probably request that its tasks be expanded to include Featured Lists and Featured pictures. It should also be noted that if we can't have this done automatically, we can consider doing what Wikipedia:Former featured articles tried having the counts in comments: see here. But, I think that having a bot do it would be our best option. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured color - orange to blue?

I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange(#FFF7E6), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) —Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of FLs on FC page

Currently 85 of the featured lists have been set up atWikipedia:Featured content/Lists for display on the featured content page. This includes all entries from each of the list categories except "Geography and places", "Politics and government", and "Sports and games". Of course, those are the three largest groups so there is still alot to do. Thus far the only objection to this system has been at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, where it was stated that the inclusion tags reduced accessibility because any transclusion of the page elsewhere than WP:FC would not include the full list. That page has therefor been removed from the options for random display on the featured content page. Thank you to the people who have set up featured lists for display themselves. When doing so please remember that you need to insert the inclusion tags, add the new entries to display, and update the total count. I will continue working through the remaining lists. --CBD 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts, CBD. -- Colin°^Talk 21:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now up to 109, just over half, including all from Geography/places and recently promoted in other categories. Also, if you want to see whether a particular list has been formatted for the WP:FC page, or how it will look there, you can use {{list preview|<page name>}}... either to 'Show preview' of what it will look like or save a copy on a page. --CBD 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Pennsylvania state parks is now set up for display - I wanted to include the clickable map, so left more of the intro in, plus the first five parks in the list. I tried preview and it worked, but wasn't sure if I needed to let someone know or have someone double check it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 12:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no need to get 'approval'. You did everything correctly. --CBD 11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Current count

I just counted 227 Featured Lists, but the top of the page says 235. Did I miscount or are we off by 8? Jay32183 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

FLs in the Main Page

Currently there is a discussion at Talk:Main Page on featuring featured lists, and what is needed someone who's like Raul (the FA scheduler) to get things going, etc. --Howard the Duck 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a proposal for a WikiProject here. I personally think that we need a collaboration first, to ensure that we have a steady rate of 31 FLs a month coming in to keep the "Today's Featured list" up and running. Therefore, I think that we need a WikiProject first, then we can decide whether we should implement the TFL.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the "this week's FLs" can be enough, with the content from that list rotating for 7 days. Wikipedia has a lot of lists, and with the implementation of FLs in the Main Page, the folks at WP:FLC will be much more stringent and tougher to please. --Howard the Duck 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a list?

Is Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming a list, an article or something in between? Not that I think the list/article has any chance of being featured anytime soon, but just got to wondering because it's an article I got interested in recently and then the 'featured list' proposal got me thinking of lists vs articles... Nil Einne 11:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder when would an article win "the double," being an FL and an FA. :) --Howard the Duck 12:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons

Someone keeps putting a FAR tag on List of The Simpsons episodes; I believe they intend to submit it for featured list review, but I don't know how to do that for them. Can someone review the talk page and figure it out? Wikipedia:Featured article review/List of The Simpsons episodes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have already been taken care of Nil Einne 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Idea for list and suggestion for featured list

• I recently jotted down a list of the known burial places of English monarchs. It doesn't feel like a real list, but is it the sort of thing that has potential or not? See the Reference Desk question (and answers) here for more details. Carcharoth 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• I also came across List of islands by area. What would have to be done to improve this towards featured status? It look interesting, but needs a fair amount of work done on it. Carcharoth 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Lists of mathematics topics featured?

Lists of mathematics topics says it's featured. The different List of mathematics topics (note "List" instead of "Lists") which redirects to List of mathematics articles was removed from Wikipedia:Featured lists in this edit. PrimeHunter 23:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for an early look at a list improvement in progress

Inspired by the FL List of Dartmouth College alumni, I've started work on improving List of University of Oxford people in the hope that, one day month year it might reach FL standard. It was previously a long list of names (with some other details) in text form, divided by field of notability (e.g. Prime Ministers, novelists). I'm now gradually putting the sections of the list into sortable tables and trying to find references for all the alumni mentioned. As it's a large project, I would be very grateful if someone could cast a brief eye over what I'm doing to tell me if I'm doing anything obviously wrong, or missing anything blindingly obvious. For example, when using sortable tables, should I be wikilinking each occurrence of the different Oxford colleges (as, if I only link the first occurrence, that may not be the "first occurrence" once the table has been resorted)? I know this isn't WP:PR but I've never tackled the task of improving a list before: five minutes from someone more used to looking at excellent lists could save me a lot of time in the long run and would be very welcome. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New sections in the Manual of Style: dates, numbers, etc

Dear colleagues

WP's Manual of Style has been expanded to include a summary of the recently overhauled MOSNUM submanual. Featured List candidates are explicitly required to follow these guidelines, as are all WP articles.

At issue are the new Sections 9–14:

• Non-breaking spaces
• Chronological items (Precise language, Times, Dates, Longer periods)
• Numbers
• Decimal points
• Percentages
• Units of measurement
• Currencies, and
• Common mathematical symbols

More detailed information on these and other topics is at WP:MOSNUM. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Count of FLs

The count of Fls at the top was off by 8. I counted all of the listed lists twice and came up with 327 instead of 335 that was written at the top. I then found out that the count was correct at the end of 2006 (see here) and did some research and found that the problem occurred in this edit.--Crzycheetah 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

List size

Some lists, especially given the requirement to have a ref for each entry, can grow to a large size. What are the guidelines on this and splitting a list from say A-Z into A-L and M-Z?Rlevse 12:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean to ask whether an existing featured list can be split, or how the criteria apply to "fragments" of lists? Circeus 18:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

An existing list.Rlevse 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My take is: the list is demoted (because the original article is probably not worthy anymore), but the parts can be re-nominated separately. Which list where you thinking about? Circeus 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

New record

It looks like August 2007 could set a new record for number of lists promoted. With the month half over, there are 23 lists, which ties it for second overall. Currently, July 2007 is first with 29 and if August continues with its promotion rate (3 lists promoted every 2 days), it could slaughter the present record. There's really nothing else to it, I just thought it was cool that another new record would be set. Although it will be a while until the FL promotion number is anywhere near the FA promotion number (70 promoted in July 2007) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Music subsection

I think it has become necessary (or at least will become necessary in the near future) to break the music list in a subsection for discographies. There's 8 discogs currently featured (half of the music-related featured lists), 3 current candidates (all of which look pretty good to me), and personally I intend on nominating another very soon. I think it's safe to say that this will eventually have to be done. Drewcifer 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So yea, now there's a total of 12 FL discographies, and 4 more up for nomination as we speak. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Drewcifer 05:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a "Physics and Astronomy" category and a "Space" category?

I'm kind of curious about that. They aren't split up in the FA category, so why should that be any different here? It's not like there are a lot of space related lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because "Space" means "Spatial exploration", specifically on terrestrial orbit, which is entirely different from "astronomy". I'll fold that under "engineering and tech" instead, and move the AAAASP to Astronomy. It's not easy as new topics for list emerge to keep the listing logical and useful. Compare the listing of building, for example. Circeus 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page

O.K. for the nth time, let's look at a dedicated mainpage section for WP:FLs. I think the WP:POTD takes up a lot of unnecessary space. A feature such as WP:LOTD (List of the Day) or WP:TFL (Today's Featured List) could take up the right half of the space allocated to WP:POTD. If we have to repeat list for a while that is O.K. I am not so sure it will be much of a problem. There are now about 400 WP:FLs and the pace of promotion is picking up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the picture takes up a disproportionately large area compared to the FA section. I assume you know that lists appear on Wikipedia:Featured content, which randomly displays snippets of featured articles, pictures, lists and topics. You can randomly cycle through the content to see what a MainPage list snippet might be like. Most lists contain tables that require a decent width to display properly. I don't think this would work if squeezed into the RHS of a page. IMO, the example list portions you get at Wikipedia:Featured content are generally not fascinating enough to deserve a place on one of the most viewed pages on the internet. Many of them are also considerably larger (vertically) than would probably be allowed for the mainpage. Colin°^Talk 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Being on the main page is totally different than being at Wikipedia:Featured content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
2. The lists at WP:FL are no less fascinating than the new articles at WP:DYK. However, we have to work on making the hook for the list on the main page intriguing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
3. I am not sure the main page hook need always contain a snippet of the list. I think the WP:LEAD need be intriguing or informative. If so, it would suffice for a main page snippet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
4. I, in fact, have a proposal to revamp WP:TFA that failed to get approval that might work well as an experiment at for WP:LOTD. It did not fail because it is undoable, but more because of the cadre of follows of the WP:TFA director who do not want to see the system change. I could revamp my proposal for list and see what people think. I think WP:FL is getting big enough to do this successfully.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New FL on the Main Page proposal

We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List_of_WWE_Champions needs fixing

I just visited Wikipedia:Featured content and discovered that something was wrong with the tranclusion of this list onto the page. I'm sure it's something to do with the include tags being messed up or something like that, but aren't really sure about how the specific implementation works. Could someone fix it? Harryboyles 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Toohool 00:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Naruto chapters (Part I)

Does this fall under "Language and literature" or "Media". While I'm at it, do lists of awards won by ____ fall under "Awards and decorations" or whichever medium its recipient fist under? (music, media, etc.)? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"awards won by" would fit with whatever the winner fits in (cf. the Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific). Naruto can go in either, but I'm inclined toward literature, since it only cover paper media (and it was originally a manga, unlike Kingdom Hearts media, which would be unreasonable to move). I'm going to add subdivision to the media section while I'm at it... Circeus 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Colors for featured list

Can we use color coded tables for featured lists? Miranda 21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not excessively. Generally, colour coding should not be used for any "vital information". See this page, which is an FL, and contains what I think is acceptable colour coding. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I used it for this, since there are four groups of founders. Miranda 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that is entirely, even obnoxiously unnecessary. It's actually an excellent exampleof how not to use color. There's no need whatsoever for it and it replaces information that should be offered in prose anyway. Circeus 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

:-( ok let me take it out. Here's the original version here. Miranda 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As it is, if they were mixed into the list, (with the fact they are founder mentioned), it would be appropriate to add the color to make them stand out (That's how color is usually used), but as it, it was really unneeded. An idea is that instead of having a repetitive note column, you could split the table like List of mammals of Canada to show the different groups. Given the small size of that table, losing the sort function is not a big deal. Circeus 01:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

LOTD proposal

You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

FL class

I have gotten list class added to the quality log. I am trying to get FL class added here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why what's the big deal with that? I thought all featured class articles were considered on the same level, so why should it matter? If anything, Featured portals and images and sounds should have their own column, not lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally!!!!!!!!!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to know what project templates support FL as a class? Gimmetrow 03:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

huge blunder

Lists (PLURAL, dammit!!) of mathematics topics is a featured list.

List (singular!!) of mathematics topics is not.

After the featured list got moved to lists of mathematics topics, someone changed Wikipedia:Featured lists so that it said list of mathematics topics, which was a redirect to the non-featured list of mathematics articles. Then someone saw that the page listed at Wikipedia:featured lists was not a featured list, and deleted it. The error stood for almost seven months. I've changed the singular title to a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked about this five months ago in #Is Lists of mathematics topics featured?. PrimeHunter 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

List of The Day

Since it looks like Today's featured list proposal is going to pass, I am here to recrute people to help get this going and help decide who should be in charge of it. Any suggestions? The Placebo Effect (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Royalty, nobility, and heraldry... and vexillology?

How about expanding the section "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry" to "Royalty, nobility, heraldry and vexillology"? Currently, the section includes only two lists: List of French monarchs and List of Portuguese monarchs. With the expansion, we could move Flag flying days in Mexico and List of Polish flags here from the "Culture and society" section. Heraldry and vexillology have quite much in common and we have a single wikiproject for both topics. We might also expand the "Awards and decorations" section to "Awards, decorations and vexillology" like it is at Wikipedia:Featured articles and move all the flag-related lists there. This seems like a worse option to me, though; currently, the section contains mostly lists of motion picture awards, which have little to do with vexillology. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and go ahead with that. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal #6!

This time I posted the design itself as the proposal. A picture is worth a thousand words...

Wikipedia:Today's featured list proposal

Are we there yet?

See you there!

The Transhumanist    21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

move to portal namespace

See Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace. —Ruud 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

References

I have no idea where to bring this up so if there's a better place to do so, please let me know. Right now, work is being done to raise List of centenarians to FL status and a question was raised about referencing. On one hand, it would be optimal to have a reference for each name that mentions them being 100+ years old (obit, biography, 100th birthday news article etc. etc.). On the other hand, these facts should be inherent on the article page themselves and thus cited properly there and it would add a lot to an article that is already almost 90 KB. We still have some things to do (add a picture, write a proper lead etc. etc.) so I'm not asking for a "review" of the list as it stands, but rather wondering, before I put an awful lot of work into individual references, if that would be the preferred method. Cheers, CP 00:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Automation

Would you like FLC closes automated like FAC closes? Gimmetrow 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

500 Featured lists!

We now currently have 500 lists! For those who are curious, the 500th one would be the second that I promoted today, which is List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks. Congratulations, and here's to 500 more in 2008. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Question of sources for featured lists

(Stupid question, bear with me) If someone were trying to turn, lets say, a sports roster into a featured list, and the majority of the list is covered by one or two websites, would they have to put inline citations next to everyone on the list referencing them to those two websites, or could they just but the two sites at the bottom in the references section and use inline citations for everything else not covered? Nenog (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster, and the discussions here, here, here, here, and specifically here. Nenog (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We have plenty of FLs working that way. Circeus (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in that case, a few general citations should be okay. For a similar list see: List of Manchester United F.C. players, which is an FL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Now that WP:LOTD is up and running we were trying to expose it to readers at WP:FC by adding {{ListoftheDaylayout}}. This has been controversial. Please comment at Portal_talk:Featured_content#List_of_the_Day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is another proposal out there, and displaying either one would be choosing sides and it would look like advertising. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lists that direct to other lists

Is there a precedint for getting a list that redirects to other lists up to featured status. Specifically, I am referring to the List of Medal of Honor recipients list. Due to the sheer size of the list (over 3500) it wouldn't be feasible to put them all on one big list so its broken up by conflict. My qustion specifically is is this acceptible for a featured list?--Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess knowone knows...or cares.--Kumioko (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

edit this page, pretty please

Neat change, but I can't see how it was done, and it only happens from the WP:FL shortcut. So how was this done? Gimmetrow 22:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gone now [1]. I guess the shortcut was still cached for me, so I was looking through {{R from shortcut}} and subtemplates for something. Gimmetrow 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Images in lists of people

In a list of historical people (for example, Lists of Presidents of Examplecountry) can it not become an FL if it doesn't have free images for one or two people in the list? Do we have to wait fifty years until the existing photos of the person are in the public domain? Would a list have more chance of passing if it had no photos of any people except in the intro, so it would be at least uniform, if plain? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The image part of th FL criteria is usually ignored because it was written before the more stringent image rules. I don't see why a list with only a few missing images would have a lot of trouble. We have several FLs that only have images for less than half of the people in a table, ie. List of premiers of Alberta. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify what "is usually ignored"? All criteria should be respected, and if there is something wrong with them then they should be changed. Colin°^Talk 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was criterion 3 is usually the most excuseable, because with the image rules, most lists aren't allowed to have any fair use images. I've never seen a list fail because of an issue over free images (fair use images, yes, but not free images)

Alpha order?

My assumption would be that the groupings are listed alphabetically. So why is "Literature and theatre" before "Law"? I didn't want to change it myself in case there was something I didn't know. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Discographies

At the risk of blatant WikiProject advertisement, I thought I'd let everyone know about the new Discography WikiProject. As far as I know this is the first list-based WikiProject (with the exception of the Lists WikiProject), so I thought it was worth mentioning. There's been alot of scattered discussion about discography style as of late, so I hope this project can act as a central hub for those discussions, and once consensus is reached, to provide a style guide of some sort. Anyways, take a look and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this existing FL be split into shorter lists?

Thoughts, please, on List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford. When it passed its FLC, it looked like this (113 alumni, 25 fellows/principals, 91,000 bytes). In its current state, it now has 211 alumni, 86 fellows/principals and 160,000 bytes - I've been busy, as you can tell! The page is now one of the top 100 longest pages on WP, and is getting increasingly difficult to load and edit. I think it would be appropriate to split it into at least two lists, e.g. List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and List of Fellows and Principals of Jesus College, Oxford. What do people think, and how should this be done so as to keep both at FL status? Bencherlite^Talk 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DISCOG

Just to let everyone know, as part of the ongoing effort to get WP:DISCOG up and running, I've written up my proposal for a discography style guideline, which can be found at MOS:DISCOG. I mention it here since a lot of the FL discogs past and present will potentially be affected by the guideline, since my goal was to make more stringent requirements for FL discogs. Nearly all FL discogs (including the 4 or 5 that I've seen through to FL) aren't 100% compliant with my proposal, to varying degrees of necessary work. I'd like to eventually cleanup all of the current FL discogs, ideally with this or any other WP:DISCOG style guidelines in mind, so any decisions made with my proposal will most likely affect alot of featured lists. So, please take a look and make any comments you might have on the guideline's talk page. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of WCW Hardcore Champions

Can List of WCW Hardcore Champions be merged with List of WCW Hardcore Championship reigns by length in a sortable table?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest featured-content dispatch in The Signpost

I've inserted a mention of FLs in an article that would otherwise have concerned only FAs. I hope my characterisation of FLs was OK (it had to be just a short phrase). I don't think the edition is out yet. Wikipedia:FCDW/May_5,_2008 Tony (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation

Architecture & buildings

I came to find some good lists of buildings, a task made (slightly) more difficult by the fact there is no consistency of listing. Castles in Greater Manchester is listed under Art, architecture and archaeology, Grade I listed buildings in Bristol under Culture & society, and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester under Engineering & Technology. Is this a little strange? Gwinva (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the two listed buildings ones into the architecture one given they are listed due to their architectural significance. Woody (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On another note, should we also move the Lists of tallest buildings: into the architecture section? Woody (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, personally I think those lists fit more under engineering, but perhaps we should ask someone familiar with the subject like Raime. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tallest seems more about engineering whereas grading is all about the architecture as far as I am aware so the current system actually seems the most appropriate. Woody (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Video games

Should these not be moved from sport and recreation into media. That would seem more appropriate to me. I will carry this out if there are no objections within a couple of days. Woody (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to oppose because we usually ty and be consistant with the WP:FA categories, but as it turns out, they've gone and moved video games to their own section, so we might as well too. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Space

Currently stuff relating to space and astronomy are under the "Engineering and technology" and "Physics and astronomy" categories. Should they all be placed into one "Space and astornomy" category? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go with "Space and astronomy" ;) Woody (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

onlyinclude

At Eurovision Song Contest winners there is an inline comment that says:

<onlyinclude><!-- See [[Wikipedia talk:Featured lists]] for an explanation of this and other inclusion tags below -->

but there seems to be no mention of "onlyinclude" here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.101.159 (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There probably was at one point, but it may have been archived. I'll try to dig it out for you. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists/Archive_1#Proposed_change_to_all_featured_lists. Nothing has really taken effect, and many FLs do not have the onlyinclude tags. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If the use of these cryptic tags is at all widespread then I think that ideally an explanation should be left on this page (or somewhere else if someone wants to change all the links in the article comments), rather than being hived off somewhere else, if that can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.41.219 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes includes comment of <!-- See [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#Proposed_change_to_all_featured_lists]] for an explanation of this and other inclusion tags below --> -TinGrin 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My list is probably in the wrong category

A list that was recently promoted, List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year, is in the "Literature and theatre" section. Wouldn't that list be more appropriate for the "Language and linguistics" section? (Shouldn't that section have a level 2 header as well?)--Dem393 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to stick it in literature, since Merriam-Webster is a publisher of dictionaries and the list has more to do with the books than the actual English language. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up!--Dem393 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order of names in lists

I noticed that the sortable lists on some featured lists such as the list of songs in Guitar Hero, Guitar Hero II, and Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s, the names of persons such as Billy Squier and Eddie Money are sorted strangely. Instead of being sorted by their last names (e.g., Squier, Billy and Money, Eddie), they are simply sorted by their first names. Is this intentional, or should I fix this? -Xnux the Echidna 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, names starting with numbers such as "18 and Life" and 38 Special appear automatically at the top of the list when sorted, instead of being sorted by the spelling of their pronunciations (e.g., Eighteen and Life, Thirty-Eight Special). Is this intentional too? -Xnux the Echidna 02:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Featuring 'featured' lists

The 'onlyinclude' section above refers to a methodology for formatting lists to be displayed on the Wikipedia:Featured Content page. When first implemented this covered more than 50% of the featured lists and was fairly easy to maintain. However, with the explosion in list promotion over the past year and a half that is no longer feasible. With so many lists well meaning people will almost constantly be removing or changing the inclusion tags on one list or another and thus throwing off the formatting.

It was originally hoped that some sort of 'featured list of the day' would eventually be settled on and could then be leveraged to populate the display on the featured content page. Unfortunately, while there have been (and still are) various ideas for list of the day entries, I haven't seen anything which has produced a group of featured list 'blurbs' to be pulled from.

Is there any interest in setting such up to replace the current 'inclusion tag' method? I'm think of something like creating a page similar to Nuclear power by country/Blurb for each featured list. So long as the page naming was consistent it would then be a simple matter to display a randomly selected featured list each time Wikipedia:Featured Content is reloaded/purged. These blurbs could also be used to display a 'list of the day' on the WP:FP page or possibly (if consensus approval could be gathered) the Main Page. --CBD 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

List Questions

In a recent Featured List Candidate on notable graduates of a school, the following issues were raised that might be useful to discuss:

• Inclusion Criteria/Statement of Scope

How should this be specified for a list which consists of a "notable" subset of a whole? Originally, I placed "Notable" in the section title, but a comment stated that was redundant and should be deleted. I ended up including a sentence that stated "...graduated the following notable alumni who made significant contributions to..." and another that ended with "...listed in the roles for which they are most notable" along with a reference to WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#NOTE. The reason people are in this particular list is that they graduated from a particular school and they are notable per standard Wiki criteria. The roles under which they were grouped was an attempt to break the list into pieces of managable size but other groupings are possible.

• References for each Item in the List

Can a wiki article be used as a reference for an item in the list? I realize wiki is not considered a reliable source, but it seems that Wiki should have some way of reusing or pointing to the reliable references in a given article instead of copying the text. For example, it has been well-documented that Chuck Yeager was the first to break the sound barrier in level flight, and his wiki article has many reliable references to that fact. Must a list of notable pilots repeat the reference(s) or could it simply point to the Yeager article?

Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably get more responses if you post this at WT:FLC, more users have it on watch. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scorpian. Will do. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Length of featured lists

I think this has been discussed already, but how long do lists have to be to be featured? List of heads of state of Gabon was failed because it had four entries and three unique ones. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 12:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is 10. Long answer is here and here, both in the archives of WT:FLC. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous honestly. If an article meets all the criteria, why can't it be an FL? That also discourages users from working on the "List of Heads of state of [African country]" series as most of them have less than 10 people on it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to be fairly flexible so I don't think there should be an absolute number. We should use Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists as guidelines. In the specific situation of List of heads of state of Gabon I got the impression that the issue was that perhaps the subject ('heads of state of Gabon') should be an article, and not a list. Compare President of Egypt with President of Gabon. A 'list of heads of state of Gabon' should probably be a list within an article titled President of Gabon. --maclean 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New Featured content IRC channel

Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL ^connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC ^connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Update FL count?

Not sure, but I think that there are now 987 FLs after four were promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

1000th list

Is it correct for me to assume that since the current count is 1000 and List of Bleach episodes (season 8) is at the top of WP:FLL, that it was the 1000th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because we have had lists demoted before now, and we will have lists demoted afterwards. It is the current 1000th list, but it is not historically the 1000th list. Whether anyone can be bothered to work that one out is another thing. Woody (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as per FAC, all three lists promoted at the same time are the current 1000th list. Woody (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of

Is there a 'generally accepted' minimum number of entries in a list? How would a very short list do (say 6 or 7 entries) at FL? Chamal ^talk _work 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh forget it. Sorry, I didn't see the same question has been asked and answered earlier. Chamal ^talk _work 14:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards, decorations and vexillology

I think we should limit the category to "decorations and vexillology" because it is very inconsistant. Academy awards lists are under that category, but dozens of other FL awards lists - NHL trophies, awards for various other sports, Victoria Cross recipients, lists of television and musician awards - all fall under their various topics (sports, music, etc.). I think we should either put ALL awards under that category or eliminate it, which I would prefer because it would be rather confusing. However, the Victoria Cross lists would fall under decorations, and should be moved there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Or limit NHL awards to "sports" and television and music stuff to "media" or something... Garden. 21:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should either remove it completely, and keep sport awards with sports, warfare awards with warfare, and music awards with music, or create a single "Awards" category. I really don't understand why awards are listed with flags anyway. And what's with "Decorations" too? If someone creates a list of Christmas decorations, does that go with Awards and flags? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I really don't like the title "warfare", I think "Military and military history" was better but it was changed because we try to follow WP:FA (but if we make the above change, then we wouldn't anymore, so it doesn't really matter). Does anyone support renaming it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I only made the change about a week ago because, as you said, that's how FAC have it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew, just remove it completely, or group all awards under one heading (Would prefer removing it all together). And I also like "Military and military history", just because it is much more descriptive and professional. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Media and Music

Who is reviewing the lists in the Media and Music sections? There seems to be a bias in favor of current TV shows and musical artists. Jimknut (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really not surprising, but it's not really a "bias", at least not from the process. It's not like we get an even number of current TV show and 70s TV show FLCs and only promote current ones. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in a Main Page section?

Hi, I'm from the 2008 main page redesign proposal and I am interested in adding a new section that will display a Featured Portal, Topic, or List daily. (I don't think there's enough to have one of each a day for several years.) However, I am not involved with any of these projects and don't want to champion the cause myself. There has already been talk of Featured Sounds on the Main Page; and we would be willing to make combinations like the Beethoven mock-up there, featuring related lists, portals, topics, etc. on one day. I would appreciate your feedback here, because I'm posting this message in a number of places and would like a unified discussion. Thanks, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Another milestone

With the group of 9 FLs a few days ago, the total of FAs+FLs+GAs surpassed 1 in 300 articles here (based on NUMBEROFARTICLES). Gimmetrow 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We're more than a third of one percent toward our goal, hurray! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New format for WP:FL

I started a discussion about making some changes to this page here. It was started there for the simple fact that more FLC regulars have it on watch. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

List of featured lists

Come on, where's the sense of humor?!? =) --Alterego 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorting Numeric Fields

I'm working on getting an article to FA standards... List of World Series of Poker Main Event Champions. But I can't seem to figure out how to the first numeric field to sort properly. Any suggestions?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased?

Is it my imagination or is there a blatant bias favoring current or near-current television programs in the episode lists and also favoring the discographies of contemporary musical artists? Just wondering. — Jimknut (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely there is, but there's nothing we can really do about it. In fact, the majority of Wikipedia has a recentism bias. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to help combat this problem, and please, bring forward an episode list or discography whose subjects aren't of recent times. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for images

Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing question

I am planning on getting List of American television episodes with LGBT themes to featured status and I have a question regarding citations. Since per WP:RS and WP:PSTS, primary sources are acceptable for works of fiction, do I need in inline citation for each episode or would it be acceptable not to? I can get secondary sources if I have to but I'd rather put the energy into other things if I can. I realize that any non-plot statements such as the reaction to particular episodes will need sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't hurt. {{cite episode}} would work. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it wouldn't hurt but if it's not required I'd rather not spend the time. Otto4711 (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this article a list?

Is Jutsu (Naruto) a list? Over at WP:GAN, we are not clear. It was suggested that I ask here. Thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is an article. Reywas92^Talk 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Reywas92 and classify that as an article with many sections. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Featured content/Lists needs a maintainer

The Portal:Featured content/Lists that is used in Portal:Contents (third link down in the sitewide sidebar) is badly out of date. It needs some additions and removals (FLRC) and requires regular maintenance. I'm not sure who all to notify (so please pass this along where appropriate) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussing at Quiddity's talk page. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured list number

User:Reywas92 just edited the featured list number to read that we have 1357 instead of 1358 FLs. My question is, what is right and what number do we go off of? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm also getting 1357. I can explain the difference: [2]. Whoops. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

John Wayne filmography

Currently the filmography of John Wayne is devided into three sections:

John Wayne filmography (1926–1940)

John Wayne filmography (1941–1960)

John Wayne filmography (1961–1976)

I created these lists several years ago and am now considering giving them a major make-over. Among the possibilities I have in mind is to combine them all into one list, although this might be quite long, as the current lists run to a total of 185 entries. Before I do anything I thought it might be a good idea to get some suggestions from the Wikipedia community. Anyone care to offer any suggestions? Jimknut (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of List of Washington & Jefferson College people

I am currently rewriting List of Washington & Jefferson College people, and I want to make sure I have a decent table format that would pass FL, if that ever is a possibility. I'd hate to do all the work and then have to re-code the table, so can someone check out my sandbox version at User:Jwilkinsen Jr/sandbox? --Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good from a very fast glance. I recommend asking User:Bencherlite, User:Rlevse, and User:Gary King, as they have written FLs of this type before. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to take it live now. --Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

World Series of Poker results

2007 World Series of Poker Europe results and 2008 World Series of Poker Europe results--- I was just asked an interesting question at the FT about this. The question was "Why do we have results" in the title? The answer is because on the WSOP articles we create an article and a list of events, with the name "results." I don't want to move these as I know that it could create problems moving feature content, but think we probably should move them. What is the best way to do so?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem, users do it all the time. Just move the page and the GimmeBot will do the rest (if you use the articlehistory template, you don't need to worry about fixing any links to the FLC page). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, wanted to check, I know that somebody once moved one of the FA's I worked on and it really messed things up. Sandy was not happy at all ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooops those should be WSOP Europe, where we don't have a main article, only the list ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article/List merge

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry is an FL, but its main article National Recording Registry is only a stub and entirely redundant to the lead of the list. Since the information is a duplicate already, there is no reason to have a separate list from the article so they should be merged under the main title National Recording Registry. However, I can't really perform the merge myself because it's an FL and can't just be moved. Any comments/help? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold an FLRC to have the FL delisted first; then, move the appropriate material into the main article, then redirect the list to the main article. If you want a history merge too, you'll need an admin. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I could just ask an admin to delete the National Recording Registry page and then move List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry to that title. Then we won't have to worry about any procedural delisting. All of the info on the article in on the list. Are any of the FL regulars admins who could do it? Reywas92^Talk 01:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it still be a list? If so, then Balloonman (talk · contribs) can help you out—I would normally say Matthewedwards (talk · contribs), but he's without Internet access. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks great! I think the bot will fix everything else. Yeah, it's still a list, just under a singular title. Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked Balloonman to userfy the deleted article so that we can make sure no useful info was lost. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename "Unrecognized countries"?

At the bottom of the list, should "Unrecognized countries" be changed to "States with limited recognition" to reflect the actual article name? --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FL count

Call me a traditionalist, but I'm not yet ready to depend on a machine-generated number. However, I'm willing to manually count the FLs listed in WP:FL by section to check. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've used AWB's count before and I would trust it, and it's also the number included in the category. Perhaps someone just forgot to update it. I also checked WP:FA and Category:Wikipedia featured articles and both match the human number. Reywas92^Talk 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, between September 12 and Novermber 13 60 lists were added to the page but only 54 were added to the count. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget FLR. How many were removed? Try using AWB to count how many FLs are linked to on this page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Only 5 were delisted. Hm... Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what I did. AWB says 1586 articles are linked to from this page and that 1586 pages are in the FL category. That did include removals. The diff I included has a net increase of 60 pages but an increase in the count by only 54, accounting for the 6 I just added. Reywas92^Talk 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here are five that were not accounted for. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And here's the sixth. OK, should be fine. Thanks Reywas for your diligence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A non-director both times. Sigh... Bencherlite^Talk 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More than one non-director, but yes, frustrating. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, back in my day, I forgot to update the count on numerous occasions (though I did usually get it the next time I updated). Same with a certain other former director, let's call him Matthew E... No, that's too obvious. He shall be known as M. Edwards. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If non-directors are going to meddle, with or without permission, then the very least they can do is get everything right! Bencherlite^Talk 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"meddle" might be a tad harsh (after all, they are acting in good faith). However, point taken. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But that's just it: you were a director, so you knew the procedures. Therefore, even when you made mistakes, you usually found and corrected them. Here, because non-directors closed the FLCs, they were unaware of that aspect of closure and never knew they had forgotten. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

request

Can you guys change the div class at the beginning of each section,
from:

<div style="clear:both;" class="NavFrame">

to

<div style="clear:both;" class="NavFrame collapsible collapsed">

so each subsection can be collapsed by default to make the overall navigation more neater. Thanks.

Also i think we should really move each subsection to the "Wikipedia:Featured lists/section_name/subsection_name" (aka subpages) so people with low computer requirement or people who want to edit don't have to go through 128,000 bytes just to edit/view one section. e.g. Wikipedia:Featured lists/Art/Art and architecture

(Note: Subpages actually load pages faster, because the Browser doesn't have to render 128,000 bytes (or 32 subsection) of script. It only request and render when you "open" each subsection since you already save them in subpages). I'm using quad core and it still lags. Please change it, thanks again. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Subpages might be a good idea. Someone with a more technical background will have to answer that definitively.

However, collapsing all sections by default would make it a lot harder to either browse or search for items, so I'd strongly object to that. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why it would be hard to browse? The collapsed version present just about the same guideline as if it were a table of content. I think when you make it the content is too protruding as if you are enforcing this method of organization is the only way. You should respect other academic discipline. I don't think making it making the uncollapsed seem to user (neutral) friendly. --75.154.186.99 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Connecting Wikipedias

WHY THESE LINKE ARE NOT VALID, LITERALLY, I HAVE BEEN LOOKING EACH ONE

simple:Wikipedia:Very good articles af:Wikipedia:Voorbladartikel am:Wikipedia:ምርጥ ፅሑፎች an:Wikipedia:Articlos destacatos ar:ويكيبيديا:مقالات مختارة ast:Uiquipedia:Artículos destacaos az:Vikipediya:Seçkin məqalələr be-x-old:Вікіпэдыя:Выбраныя артыкулы bg:Уикипедия:Избрани статии bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্বাচিত নিবন্ধের গুণাবলী bs:Wikipedia:Odabrani članci ca:Viquipèdia:Articles de qualitat ceb:Wikipedia:Piniling artikulo cs:Wikipedie:Nejlepší články cv:Broken/Суйласа илнĕ статьясем da:Wikipedia:Fremragende artikler de:Wikipedia:Exzellente Artikel el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αξιόλογα άρθρα eo:Vikipedio:Elstaraj artikoloj es:Wikipedia:Artículos destacados et:Vikipeedia:Eeskujulikud artiklid eu:Wikipedia:Nabarmendutako artikuluak fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نوشتارهای برگزیده fi:Wikipedia:Suositellut sivut fr:Wikipédia:Articles de qualité gl:Wikipedia:Artigo destacado he:פורטל:ערכים מומלצים hi:विकिपीडिया:प्रमुख लेख hr:Wikipedija:Izabrani članci hsb:Wikipedija:Ekscelentne nastawki hu:Wikipédia:Kiemelt szócikkek hy:Վիկիպեդիա:Ցուցափեղկ ia:Wikipedia:Articulos eminente id:Wikipedia:Artikel pilihan ik:Wikipedia:Featured content is:Wikipedia:Úrvalsgreinar it:Wikipedia:Vetrina ja:Wikipedia:秀逸な記事 jv:Wikipedia:Artikel pilihan ka:ვიკიპედია:რჩეული სტატიები km:វិគីភីឌា:អត្ថបទពិសេស ko:위키백과:알찬 글 ksh:Wikipedia:Exzälente Aatikkel la:Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis li:Wikipedia:Sjterartikel lo:ວິກິພີເດຍ:ບົດຄວາມດີເດັ່ນ lt:Vikipedija:Pavyzdiniai straipsniai lv:Vikipēdija:Vērtīgi raksti ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:തിരഞ്ഞെടുത്ത ലേഖനങ്ങള്‍ mr:विकिपीडिया:मासिक सदर/मागील अंक संग्रह ms:Wikipedia:Rencana pilihan mwl:Biquipédia:Artigos an çtaque nah:Huiquipedia:Cualtzin tlahcuilōlli nl:Wikipedia:Etalage nn:Wikipedia:Gode artiklar no:Wikipedia:Utmerkede artikler oc:Wikipèdia:Articles de qualitat pl:Wikipedia:Artykuły na medal pt:Wikipedia:Artigos destacados ro:Wikipedia:Articole de calitate ru:Википедия:Избранные статьи sh:Wikipedia:Izabrani članci sk:Wikipédia:Najlepšie články sl:Wikipedija:Izbrani članki sq:Wikipedia:Artikuj perfektë sr:Википедија:Сјајни текстови sv:Wikipedia:Utmärkta artiklar szl:Wikipedyjo:Wyrůżńůne artikle ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:சிறப்புக் கட்டுரைகள் te:వికీపీడియా:విశేష వ్యాసాలు th:วิกิพีเดีย:บทความคัดสรร tl:Wikipedia:Mga napiling artikulo tr:Vikipedi:Seçkin maddeler uk:Вікіпедія:Вибрані статті ur:منصوبہ:منتخب مضمون uz:Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqolalar vi:Wikipedia:Bài viết chọn lọc vls:Wikipedia:Bofartikel wa:Raspepyî årtike do wiki yi:פארטאל:רעקאמענדירטע ארטיקלען yo:Wikipedia:Àyọkà pàtàkì zh:Wikipedia:特色条目 zh-classical:維基大典:卓著 zh-yue:Wikipedia:正文

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbhotch (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The ones I checked go to the equivalent of WP:Featured articles, not Featured lists. Gimmetrow 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, feel free to revert my revert (I'm still absorbing coffee..). But, do the target projects actually have a separate "Featured Lists" page? If not, it would be sensible to direct both our FA and FL pages to their Fx listings... Just a thought. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, for instance, Simple English WP doesn't have a concept of featured lists at all, so it would be misleading (in my opinion) to link it to their version of FAs ("Very Good Articles")... just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant to say, is are there any language projects that have a merged FA+FL system? Projects that include "lists" in their equivalent FA process. If so, we should still include links to those.

I can't think of any way to check that though, unless those language projects happened to include two interwiki links in their page, leading to both our FA and FL pages independently.

However, other than these hypotheticals, removing all those links makes complete sense. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortest featured lists

I'm considering a list that only has sixteen entries. Would that be too short to be a featured list? It could also possibly be an embedded list in a broader article, but if I do this as a stand-alone list, I was wondering what the shortest list is that has been featured. Does anyone here know? Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sixteen items would generally be considered a sufficient number of entries, but it wouldn't necessarily guarantee that it could be embedded in a parent article (our much-discussed 3b criterion)... Which list are you considering? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of the 16 British WWI war poets on the plaque at Westminster Abbey. The embedding could be in Poet's Corner (where they are all currently mixed up with the other ones), but I'd like to see what I can do with a stand-alone list. Carcharoth (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

By bizarre coincidence, I had a look at Poet's Corner the other day, prompted by the news that Elizabeth Gaskell is to be commemorated there, and thought that there was scope for getting a Featured List there. If and when I get round to it, I'd have short notes about each poet, as well as various sortable columns (name, year of birth / death / commemoration) but I'm not immediately sure of a way to sort the 16 together (assuming that they didn't all die in WWI). I'm not sure, as TRM says, whether a sub-list of the 16 would pass the 3(b) test, but it might be worth a go - if nothing else, it'd be the starting point for the improvement needed for the rest of the list. Bencherlite^Talk 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If done right, I think that whole page (Poet's Corner) could be three separate lists, but on the same page. The WWI poets are all commemorated on a single plaque, so it makes sense for them to be treated in a separate list from the others, even if left on the Poets' Corner page. Would you mind if I had a go at this at some point fairly soon? Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm having a stab at lists of Oxford professors at the moment, which should keep me busy for some time! Bencherlite^Talk 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

List of accolades received by...

I edit articles under WikiProject Films, and I've always been bothered by the list sub-articles that start with "List of awards and nominations received by". The term did not seem accurate (really should be "award wins and nominations") nor encompassing (excluding lists like AFI's Top 100). I started a discussion about a new standard, and while an admin linked to several discussions about the naming conventions for such sub-topics, they seemed more focused on ensuring "received by" rather than "awards and nominations". An editor at the discussion recommended "List of accolades received by", and this seems to be a great catch-all, as "accolade" is defined as "any award, honor, or laudatory notice". Do others agree? Discussion is here. Erik (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Header change

Do we really need the overly long "Association football (soccer)" for the sport I am not allowed to use the f-word alone for? Surely either "Association football" or "Football (soccer)" would suffice? If I had my way I'd go for the former, per the article name, but just thought I'd check there wasn't a good reason I'd missed. WFCforLife (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Other sub-header addition idea

Perhaps it's time to think about a "Draft" or "Draft picks" sub-header under baseball, a la the NBA and NFL? Already have overall 1st round picks, Phillies, and NYM, and plenty others are incoming. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Please see WP:VPP#Featured whatever. Simply south (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed speedily per clear consensus. – The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Featured lists → Portal:Featured lists — Move to Portal namespace rather than having it in project namespace. It is of interest to the readers of WP (as well as editors of course) and so it should be in a namespace that is for content. It should follow the Portal:Featured content layout. The move also establishes consistency with similar pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose - similar pages (WP:FA, WP:FP) exist in the Wikipedia space, not the Portal space. The misalignment between a reader's natural interpretation of "featured" and what it actually means leads me to believe that this should remain primarily characterized as an internal process. (Specifically, misaligned assumptions about fact-checking and presumption of accuracy.) Christopher Parham (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the featured content portal is a guide or directory of all featured content. Each featured content section has its own page in the Wikipedia namespace. The system works. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason to change the system; it would create unnecessary work. I should note that a similar requested move is being made at WT:FA. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose fixing something that isn't broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I too feel that this is a solution to a non-existent problem, but it certainly would create a few problems. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM and Chamal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Organization for baseball lists

Should the Boston Reds (1890-1891) list fall under MLB? Both the Players League and American Association are recognized Major Leagues, and the similar Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891) all-time roster is already under the ML. I would reserve the "Other Leagues" title for the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players (not recognized as a major league) or international leagues. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm game to whatever the baseball editors decide. What articles in WP:FL need to be moved? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Boston Reds is all I see. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Awards and prizes issue

When I promoted today, I noticed that the awards and prize lists are all over the place. Some are in the generic awards, decorations and vexillology section, while others are in subject-specific categories (e.g., Mercury Prize in music, Aurealis Award lists in literature, BBCSPOY in sports, etc.). We need consistency; how should we categorize awards lists? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I feel like the relevant sections make more sense. Maybe remove the "awards" from the title all together? When I'm looking at baseball topics it'd be nice to have the MLB Awards topic, rather than that off under awards grouped with the Nobel Prize and such. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Featured list criteria

What exactly sets a featured list apart from most well written, complete, and well referenced lists on Wikipedia? When I look at this list, I see that it appears to be professionally written (criteria 1), has a lead that introduces the subject and defines inclusion criteria (criteria 2), meets criteria 3 in comprehensiveness and stand-alone criteria, has an easy to navigate structure with section headings (criteria 4), and is stable with no edit wars (criteria 6)...criteria 5 I can't really judge because I'm not an expert in the manual of style, but it seems that overall this list meets most of the criteria. But, on the other hand, common sense tells me if it was that close to featured quality, someone would have patched it up and nominated it by now. So on this note, what am I missing when it comes to the featured list criteria. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, to begin with it's not well referenced at all. The only reference listed is to a general storm search engine, not specific data on these storms (or at least a general reference list about them). Also the lead is quite thin. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The "general storm search engine" you have to put the data in each time you go to the url, because the url does not change when you run a search. But besides that, I can see your point...thanks. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "someone would have patched it up and nominated it by now." The reason nobody has done is that only the primary contributors to a list should submit lists to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest "facts checked" be added to the criteria; List of amateur radio frequency bands in India had wrong descriptions of the emission codes for the last 1 1/2 years. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Unforforking some articles

Some time ago, just over a year actually I split a series of articles into "article" and "list" - mainly because I wanted to work on making them all featured lists and I mistakenly thought they had to be called "List of" and well they went in line with other championship articles. Looking back I actually think what I did may be Content Forking since the "article" doesn't actually contain much information that's not in the "List". Since a number of these lists are FLs I'm wondering if it would force the articles to be reevaluated if I basically add an info box to the already FL rated list and then move it to the main article.

An example is always good ;) so I propose to merge CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship with List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions into an article that will look like This example I created and be called CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship but still keep it as a FL. The content is not changed from the FL, just added the info box really. Does this seem like an acceptable plan of action??  MPJ -DK  08:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal pointer

Featured List regulars may be interested in an ongoing discussion at WP:VPR regarding the addition of (an) intermediary ranking(s) between List and Featured List. The heading is "Grading Scheme" for those who wish to join the discussion. Disclaimer: I have already supported the proposal, but have tried to make this notice as neutral as possible. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant section is here. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Has there ever been consideration given to producing a statistics page like WP:FAS and WP:GAS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured list/topic/sound on the main page this week

As part of the celebration for our 10th anniversary, on Jan 15 I'm going to be putting a featured list, sound, and topic on the main page in place of the featured article for that day. See Talk:Main_Page#Featured_content_for_a_day Raul654 (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FLs for "list of legislators elected at the Fooian general election, year"

Do we have an FL on an article such as that? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured list on Main page

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

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

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

400 free Credo Reference accounts available

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

Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana discography

Currently there are two discography pages, one for Miley Cyrus and another for Hannah Montana, which I find a bit disorganized because Cyrus performs the songs as Hannah Montana, but since it is still her voice, those are still her songs. I would be fine with a discography for the franchise, but one for a fictional character seems unnecessary. I want to revamp those discography pages, but first I must know how I would set it up. I have previously brought up the discussion on the talk page of the articles, but barely anyone participated in it. I'm thinking about going with what the FL Ashley Tisdale discography has, a subsection for songs credited to her fictional character. What do you guys think? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, while I have no idea, and would be very unlikely to be bothered to form an opinion, WT:FLC is the far most trafficked of the various FL-project-talk pages. Courcelles 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

FL on the main page

This week's WP:POST said that FLs are on the main page. What are some of the details and where was this decision made?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Main Page/Archive 157#Featured list proposal. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

When does this go into effect?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whenever the volunteer coders finish working on the technical details, I suppose. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#TFL: Decision needed!. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Concerning season-type articles

There are many season-type articles on Featured List, for example: Lost (season 3), and all of these generally count as lists, but my problem is that there are also a few of these added over at Good articles, such as South Park (season 1), where the reviewer and the nominator have not realized that the articles are List-class articles.

Here are all the articles over at GA (that I could find) that are GA status when they shouldn't be: Big Brother 11 (U.S.), Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2), Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1), Millennium (season 1), Parks and Recreation (season 2), Stargate Atlantis (season 1), Stargate SG-1 (season 1), The X-Files (season 8), Parks and Recreation (season 3) along with South Park (season 1).

What should be done of this? I say that all those that have been put up to good-article status be delisted and featured as lists instead. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 16:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Only the episode sections of the season articles are lists, but the rest of it is prose. For example, The Simpsons (season 1) is a genuine featured list because it's just an episode list, where as articles such as Parks and Recreation (season 1) the episode section is a fairly small part of the page as opposed to the production, reception and DVD release sections. I understand it seems to be a touchy subject, because there are those that are just lists, while some have more. Over my time on Wikipedia I learn (and this is what I worked with) that the season articles with the episode list last as a list, while with the episode list first, is an article. -- Matthew RD 19:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What about such articles as Lost (season 3) and in fact all of the other Lost season episode lists? Along with 30 Rock (season 1) and The Simpsons (season 13), these are all Featured lists and there are plenty more, each of these articles have additive information in them that supplement the lists themselves. The way I see it, there are 3 decisions that really quite have to be made, either

1. We delist all of the Featured List season episode articles and place them in corresponding GA or FA statuses.
2. We delist all FA or GA episode articles and place them in FL.
3. We find a compromise, a rule, between which are listed where.

All of which are very tricky because it means moving articles that have a history and have been reviewed and it's all very complex. We really can't just leave them where they are and put them to a corner because that would be rather negligent of a bit of poor categorization that has managed to creep through the FA/GA/FL process.

I would really appreciate a fourth option to this discussion (there probably is one, I'm just too silly to see it), if you have any opinion on the matter... it would be very welcome. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done unless editors wish to nominate their list articles at FLC. If GA reviewers believe season lists to meet GA requirements, then that's fine too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But, it's poor categorization. Why do we have two distinguishing processes if it doesn't matter which goes where? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it's dependent on the quality of the article. If it's more prose than list it's a GA or FA, if it's more list than prose, it's FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, then that means that quite a few already existent FL's have a serious problem, because around half of them are more prose than list. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not really, the community by consensus agreed they were featured list quality, there's no problem. We've had countless "good list" discussions, the community have rejected this idea. So, borderline articles have to fall into either GA or FL category. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of a good list either, it's more just a qualm with the idea that we don't have a system at all to determine whether some of these type of articles are FL-quality or GA-quality. And if we do, and it turns out that if the article is more prose than list then it is GA (or FA), and if it is more list than prose then it is FL, then we have a problem with categorization because, under that system, some are already FL's that shouldn't be. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's always going to be a fuzzy middle ground. I wouldn't let it bug you too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should just leave this one? :/ That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm saying there is a chance that an article can meet GA and FL criteria simultaneously. Solving this is like inventing a time machine. A worthy but probably hopeless pursuit... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, if you say it's hopeless I'll let it go, but I do still maintain that some sort of guidelines should be laid out for this sort of situation. Thanks for both of your inputs. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Require reviews

When (self-)nominating an article at WP:DYK there is a requirement to do a review of another article (if one has already five or more DYK). How about having a similar requirement for FL? In my opinion this is a good idea as it would speed up the review process and reduce the necessity for authors to beg for reviewers on wikiproject pages, etc. It could also potentially increase the quality of reviews as more people familiar with the FLC process would become reviewers. What are your thoughts on this? bamse (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this. Was thinking about this very thing earlier today but ended up thinking that we might end up with quid-pro-quo deals. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Strange Passerby. The worst thing (in my opinion) about the review process at DYK is that you rush a review out just to ensure you can nominate your own. I'm not suggesting everyone does this, but I tend to think that the quality of reviews is low and would hesitate to mandate this kind of thing at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus QPQ reviewing at DYK is getting a severe kicking at WT:DYK at the moment, with some editors (including some heavily involved with FAC) concerned that it has led to a significant decline in the standards of DYK. If FLC was to become the first audited process (FAC/FPC/FPoC/FSC/FTC/GA) to require "nominate one, review one", there is a very real danger that it would be used as an easy criticism of FLC, just at the point when our excellent lists are winning friends through main-page exposure. Bencherlite^Talk 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

What TRM said. — KV5 • Talk • 10:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If editors complain about their FLCs not receiving enough reviews, we can of course encourage them to do some reviews of their own, but requiring reviews will just take us down a bad road. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How would encouraging them "to do some reviews of their own", get them more reviews for their own FLCs? bamse (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Editors tend to remember when other editors have done reviews for them. However, making QPQ reviews mandatory would be the biggest mistake FLC could possibly make, just like it was the biggest mistake DYK has made. If people who aren't comfortable reviewing are forced to review something to get their own content to pass, the risk of a bad (read: rubber-stamp) review is high. When DYK started relying on QPQ to reduce its backlog, the quality of the typical review dropped, leading to the mess that is being uncovered now. Maybe some of those bad articles and copyvios would have been detected by regulars. We need to learn from DYK's experience, not repeat it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I did not know about the bad experience at DYK. I guess it is best to just recommend that contributors also review other nominations. bamse (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Expanding beyond a list

The prose of List of deaths at the Berlin Wall article is expanding to the point where it might not be considered a list article any more - at what point do you think I should be looking towards FA criteria than FL criteria? violet/riga _^[talk] 19:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Never. Improve the page as much as you can. Ponder whether it's a normal article or a list article once you're done. Goodraise 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Focus on the article, make it as brilliant as you can. Then decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Two former FL

As part of splitting some articles, FLs List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2) and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3–4) were merged to List of Naruto episodes. Should I remove the FL templates from the talk pages? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say "doubtful". Rather than removing the templates, I would submit the merged list to WP:FLRC. This way, it can be reviewed to see if the merger meets current FL standards and, if so, retained, or alternatively, be improved to meet those standards so as to lose only one FL instead of two. Only my humble opinion tho. — KV5 • Talk • 03:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that the current content of List of Naruto episodes bares little resemblance to that of the merged lists and that their content has been split out again into List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), List of Naruto episodes (season 3), and List of Naruto episodes (season 4). My suggestion is to skip the formalities and proceed as if an FLRC with outcome demote has already occurred. Goodraise 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As a director, I say do FLRCs for each of the two lists, and we can do speedy delists for both because of the merging/splitting that has gone on. I'd feel better delisting a featured piece of content if we had it clearly indicated in the FLRC archives, like any other page that gets demoted. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Goodraise 01:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a list?

I'm currently working on improving the list of stations in Slow Train - intending to tabulate it, provide better references, footnotes, etc. As this forms quite a substantial part of the article, would it be considered a list article, and a possible future candidate for FL?  An optimist on the run! 22:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably, for more interest, worth conducting this conversation at WP:FLC. My instinct is that this would be, at best, a good article nomination. But let's see what the community has to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to put it to FLC till I've finished working on it - obviously it's got a long way to go yet.  An optimist on the run! 22:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but part of my response was to encourage you to ask this question to a wider audience. This talk page is virtually dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I get what you mean now. Cross posting to the FLC talk page.  An optimist on the run! 09:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. Don't think of any article as a list article. Just improve it. And when it can't be improved any further, you bring it to WP:FAC or WP:FLC. Decide then, not now. Goodraise 16:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Q re multiple nominations

Is it possible to have one discussion convering a number of featured list candidates in one go? If so, would it matter if there were 84 of them? Would it be better as seven batches of twelve instead? Just putting some feelers out for the future as I'm not ready to nominate yet. The lists are the various lists of shipwrecks linked from {{WWII shipwrecks}}, but the 1945 list hasn't been split yet. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be better advised to post this sort of discussion at WT:FLC. And there, we have a general rule that one-at-a-time-please until any existing nomination has "substantial" support. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy the question over there. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes a FL?

Preemptive apologizes. I have a few questions about FLs, which may or may not be easy questions to answer.

First, the large majority of FLs ignore MOS:LEAD, which states, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Doesn't this make them fail criteria 5?

Second, I'm currently working on a bibliography / list of works. Whereas episode lists are required to contain episode summaries, bibliographical FLs do not contain plot summaries of the relevant works. From a quick glance at other topics, such as literary and film awards and discographies, these episode summaries seem anomalous. On the other hand, I have found several examples of lists with substantial prose, but by and large that prose was necessary to establish context for list entries. Additionally, summaries make the tables unsortable and presumably break MOS:DTT. Can someone convince me why episode summaries are even necessary?

My final bit has two parts. I've observed that the bibliographies that sit as FLs currently are largely unsourced and of varying formats. I assume, because of my work with discographies and episode lists, that sortable tables and referencing publication dates are preferred. First, can we establish a more uniform way of making lists in general? Bibliographies are not alone in their varying forms; discographies tend to suffer from this as well (see 50 Cent discography versus Kronos Quartet discography). Second, with regard to the lack of references in bibliography / list of works FLs, do they need to be improved with references to meet FL criteria? I would assume this is a yes.

I think that's all for now. Thanks for putting up with me. Town of Cats (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There are several things you have to keep in mind. For one, Wikipedia's content and style guidelines are moving targets. MOS:DTT for instance is a fairly new addition. Older featured lists in particular are often outdated and should be sent to WP:FLRC to be overhauled or delisted. Also, most guidelines are written with typical, prosed-based articles in mind, their rules often making less to no sense when it comes to lists. Unfortunately, the guideline which is supposed to define the special role of list articles, WP:SAL, is woefully underdeveloped. In the absence of clear guidelines, reviewers often find themselves in a position where they have to decide for themselves what's best, which inevitably leads to varying results. On top of all that, the WP:FLC and WP:FLRC processes are hopelessly understaffed (and, in my personal opinion, inefficiently organized).

Creators of lists obviously are faced with the reverse side of the problem: Lacking useful guidelines to read, they look at existing featured lists to imitate, and find inconsistencies. At that point they can either hope for the best, create lists as they see fit and potentially end up seeing their nominations opposed (which is what most go for), or they can seek clarification (just like you appear to be doing here). The only way out of this predicament is to discuss, form consensus and adjust guidelines accordingly. The most straightforward way to do this is, again, WP:FLRC. That's my advice to you: When you find existing featured lists contradicting each other, guidelines or the criteria, nominate one of them for removal. That way you will get more authoritative answers to your questions than individual editors might give you here. Goodraise 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And, as ever, we welcome volunteers to help with the various processes, both FLC and FLRC. As Goodraise notes, we need more staff, and as a result, we need him/her and others to actually help with the "inefficient organisation", rather than just whinging about it (although I do appreciate Goodraise's image reviews). There is always a place as a director available at FLC/FLRC, if it's deemed the process needs upheaval. I'm more than happy to stand aside in place of someone who steps up to the mark and gets on with it. I'm rather tired of hearing about the sniping over the way FLC/FLRC is currently organised. Or, as Goodraise suggests, create havoc in the system, find numerous contradictions in standards and run with them so to undermine any kind of standard we've tried to achieve, then be glad that you've proved the system is truly dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you've got a standard, I'd be absolutely happy to follow it; I have no interest in undermining anything. Additionally, if there is anything I can do to aid the process, I would be happy to help. I was considering voting here, but without fully grasping the criteria, I felt such an action would be met with hostility. Town of Cats (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@TRM: I don't think you understand my position at all. Don't confuse quality with quantity. I think the featured list process is one of the best things on this entire website. It is responsible for immeasurably boosting the quality of thousands of lists. I may not be spending several hours per day editing, but of what time I do spend on Wikipedia, a large portion (probably most of it) goes into FLC, because I do think it's worthwhile. I think it has worked so well in fact, that it has basically maxed out the potential of existing guidelines. I think it is presently suffering from the results of its own success. Featured lists have outpaced the guidelines in terms of development. The FL processes excel at pushing the quality bar higher and higher. What I am suggesting is to do the opposite of what has been done in the past. Instead of adjusting lists to comply with guidelines, we should adjust (or rather expand) guidelines to comply with consensus established in FLCs and FLRCs. When I realized that the problem lies with guidelines, mainly with WP:SAL, I headed over there to see if I could fix it. It proved rather challenging. The ratio of discussion required to the significance of a change was disappointing to say the least. I figured replacing the poor lists given as examples by WP:SAL with featured lists would be a more fruitful approach. So I got to work on one of the older Deaths in ... lists, transforming [3] style "references" into footnotes only to find myself meeting unexpected and heavy resistance. My point is, many things we take for granted at FLC can not be found explicitly in guidelines. Several times already I've found myself arguing with other editors over whether bluelinked items need to be sourced! (Just the latest example: Talk:Deaths in 2012#Deaths in 2012 - file size.) That's really all I'm saying here. Compared to this, my annoyance over certain details of FLC's MO are hardly worth mentioning. Had I know how strongly you feel about the issue, I wouldn't have mentioned it here. The suggestions I made recently did not find consensus and I'm fine with that. Which is not to say it's out of my mind. I'm just focusing on other things. As for your job, I don't want it. I don't agree with everything you do, but I don't have to, do I? I think you have done and are doing an amazing job. Stepping on so few toes as you have while accomplishing so much is in itself an accomplishment. And, to you personally, much of the success of the FL processes needs to be attributed. There's no editor for whom I have more respect than for you. However, if you truly are as fed up with being an FL director as your above comment and several previous ones suggest and are only hanging on to the post out of a sense of obligation and because you believe no one would do it if you didn't, then I volunteer. Though even in the hypothetical scenario of me being an FL director, I wouldn't do anything radically different than you for the simple reason that I think directors should use less discretion rather than more and that my ideas of what could be improved and how do not have consensus behind them. Anyway, I apologize for any amount of emotional distress I may have caused you, today or in the past. I have never possessed an abundance of sensitiveness. It's one of my many failings. I hope this has cleared things up. Goodraise 00:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@TOC: Absolutely not. Any kind of participation is highly appreciated. Also, you can always point out while voting which aspects of a list you have reviewed or which you have ignored/don't feel confident in your abilities to judge. Goodraise 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated a list of works article to FLRC here, though the inactivity of its main contributor may make it a poor candidate for discussion. Town of Cats (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I just spent the last hour and a half digging through the MOS to see if episode summaries were at all relevant in episode lists. It seems summaries of fiction are supported, as long as they are verifiable. However, the required coverage in third-party sources is generally non-existent and ignored, as is writing from a out-of-universe perspective (I am absolutely guilty of both of these). In general, books found in bibliographies are notable enough to require their own articles, though essays and individual short stories don't. However, episodes covered in lists are generally not notable, especially in the case of anime episodes. Plot summaries in episode lists seem to make up for the fact that they don't exist in a stand-alone article. So what? Should Bibliographies contain plot summaries? I'm not sure. I'm almost certain an attempt to remove episode summaries will be met with opposition, though, so I struggle to see a clean way to resolve this. Town of Cats (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Third-party sources aren't normally required for plot summaries. As WP:PRIMARY puts it: "primary sources are permitted if used carefully." If practice at FLC is any indication, a move to get rid of plot summaries in episode lists won't go anywhere. Reviewers have generally demanded their inclusion or their expansion if they were very short. If consistency among articles is your goal, I think moving to add summaries to lists of works and bibliographies is more likely to turn out successful. Goodraise 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But does that mean discographies need to describe the tracks inside music? I doubt it. For now, I'm content to leave things as they are, though I wonder if there is any other good way to resolve the conflict between episode lists and MOS:DTT. Fortunate for me, I'm not nearly skilled enough with tables and the like to do any fixing though, so I'll just continue complaining aimlessly. Town of Cats (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Deaths at the Berlin Wall

Why the article List of deaths at the Berlin Wall appears under the category "Arts"? Should not be at history? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I placed it there because it was related to a structure, and numerous building-related FLs appear under the Arts heading. The Berlin Wall is strongly related to history, of course, and if you wanted to move it there I would have no complaints. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

After further consideration, I decided to move it into the History section. It was on the border between architecture and history, and the list certainly covers an important historical topic. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Songs recorded by [x]

There are currently five featured lists in the form "Songs recorded by [x]", and, from what I've noticed one or two people say on talk pages, there may well be a few more in the pipeline soon. At the moment they're all sitting in the Miscellanous subsection of Music – is there anything to be said for creating a new subsection for them? Depending on how broad its scope is, it could conceivably contain a few more of the miscellaneous music lists, e.g. "Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno" or "UK hit singles by footballers". Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I was actually starting to wonder when a new subsection would be necessary, given that we've seen quite a few of these lists at FLC recently. If nobody has any objections in the next few days, I will make up a new subsection that gives these lists their own location. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks for the response! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The new subsection is now up and running. It has the five Songs recorded by x lists and a few others that are similar. I think it fits in quite well in the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured lists

There is a new WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured lists, and I would have added a link to it on Wikipedia:Featured lists, but I am not sure of the best place for it.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly recommend merging it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists as soon as possible. That existing project needs more focus and energy and members, and creating a new project with so much overlap will only complicate matters ("where do I take issue x to? both?") and dilute the feedback available. (Unless there's a clear benefit that I cannot think of, that outweighs the obvious negatives?) —Quiddity (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

#### in XXXX: lists?

I was wondering whether articles like 2010 in the United States would be a list, or an article? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Most likely a list, like many of our hurricane timelines e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Could Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008 be considered a list in its current state due to the prominence of the lists of campaign events by month? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. There's no bright line between list articles and non-list articles. However, in practice we (the people who hang around at these pages, e.g. WT:FL, WT:FLC, WT:FLCR) tend to leave decisions on borderline cases like this one to the folks at WT:FAC. When they think an article is "too listy" to become a featured article, we take it. Goodraise 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting

There's been some discussion of splitting a particular featured list. An editor raised a good question: what would happen to the original article's featured list status? Would it translate to both resulting articles? Would it stay with the article retaining the same name, assuming there is one? Or would neither article qualify as an FL and have to requalify on their own merits? Is there any precedent for this? --BDD (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Things like that have happened before, but I don't think it's much use looking for precedent in the legal sense. It'll depend on the individual case. When a list is split for mainly size reasons and the resulting lists differ only slightly from each other and from the original list, then a director could stick his or her neck out and just promote all of them. What's more likely to happen is, however, that the new lists will need their own FLCs and that the original list will have to go through an FLRC (and possibly an FLC on top). Just keep in mind that FL status is no valid argument against splitting or merging; the FL processes want to promote good content, not stand in its way. Ask a director (directly or at WT:FLC) once the split has gained consensus and has been performed. Goodraise 23:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

April Fools

Just a heads up to everyone, as today April 1 (and thus April Fools Day) falls on a Monday, I've created Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured List for editors to select a... proper list for the occasion. Cheers! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What a bloody awful idea! Completely ignores two of our 5 pillars and turns us away from being an encyclopaedia and into a political mouthpiece. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Filmographies of featured articles

The articles Justin Timberlake videography and Jake Gyllenhaal filmography are both featured articles but need serious clean up. Both of the filmographies on the page include Director(s), Budget, Box office and USD$ when WP:FILMOGRAPHY doesn't list any of these as necessary columns. And while it's only a guideline, it doesn't pertain to the actor, it pertains to the film and clutters up the table with information that could easily be on the films page. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Director.2C Budget.2C Box office columns in Filmography where the majority voted that those kinds of columns should be removed but there are certain editors that patrol both those pages that keep reverting it citing that since they are FLCs that it shouldn't be removed without consensus. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've said this to you previously, but I will say it again: Nothing came of that discussion. Just because WP:FILMOGRAPHY (a WikiProject guideline), doesn't list the director, budget and box office information as necessary doesn't mean they can't be added. Mind you, that section only refers to a "Filmography" table on a biography article, not a stand-alone article, which the ones in question are. Again, as I said on my talk page, these were reviewed by multiple editors who didn't see a problem with having such fields included. Of course, times can change, and if it is ever deemed that such content should not be included, then obviously it should not be. But that hasn't happen. So you just have to stop being disruptive and removing content as you see fit. — Status (talk · contribs) 15:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And if anything came from that discussion, it's that a few people think that director could be included, but not box office information or the budget. I do, in a sense, understand where they are coming from with that not being included, but let me explain to you why it has been. With box office information, in particular, you can sort through them to see which of an actor's films were most successful. And the budget is just something that goes along with that. Is that not something someone reading the article would be interested in? — Status (talk · contribs) 15:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lady Lotus , if you believe any list to no longer be worthy of featured status (as you put it "need serious clean up), you are free to nominate them at WP:FLRC for discussion. It would be worthwhile describing which of the criteria they currently fail. Otherwise there's really no grounds for complaint, high quality lists don't need to follow an arbitrary project guideline on what an arbitrary project deems relevant for inclusion or not. If the community at FLC have shown a consensus that they are happy with the inclusion of certain information, why should it be summarily removed? If not, please let me know so I can archive this section which is clearly not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

When is an indefinite list "comprehensive"?

What does "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. " look like for a list with an indefinite number of potential entries such as List of fictional Jews ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong forum. It's not a featured list or a candidate for such. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Where then would one ask to find out what the Feature List "comprehensive" criteria of the means for an indefinite list? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For which list? - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

mostly in general but we can use List of fictional Jews if you need a specific example. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• As long as it's kept up to date, I don't see a problem. For example, I got List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists promoted to FL status last year, and the list is updated every week to include a new entry. — Status (talk · contribs) 11:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A list can be tagged with {{dynamic list}}, and as long as a nominator has demonstrated that he/she has gone to reasonable lengths to include those items considered, as a minimum, notable in Wikipedia terms, then there should be no real objections. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards

Please see the RfC at Category talk:Filmographies#Naming of articles about an actor's roles and awards, which relates to a number of FLs past, current and future. Comments are welcome there. – SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bot not closing FL candidates

I've noticed that 1st Magritte Awards was promoted on 14 April but that the bot has yet to close the review or add the star to the article. Is User:GimmeBot not working? AmericanLemming (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

FL updating bot

@SchroCat and Giants2008: Can you tell me which bot updates the talk page after a FLC candidate is promoted? My list Abhishek Bachchan filmography is promoted yesterday but it's talk page has not yet been updated by a bot. I saw some other Filmography's talk page, I noticed humans are updating it manually, like this and this. I also found that GimmeBot was the bot that originally updates talk pages but looking at it's contributions, I found it has not edited since 2013. Now, who will update it's talk page? Jim Carter 05:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It will be handled shortly, and it's certainly not urgent: the bot (or human intervention, when needed) can take a week or two to update. The list is featured, and appears on WP:Featured lists. - SchroCat (talk ) 05:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I just want to know which bot updates it. Jim Carter 05:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• As Schro said. There's no need to rush. I don't think any bots are actually working at FLC right now. It's like being in a Fallout 3 factory. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492 and SchroCat: Yes, that is what I wanted to know. This thread is not about my FL but I need consensus to start a new bot. I'm willing to start a bot for this project but I need consensus first. Please add your support or oppose about a new bot below. Thanks, Jim Carter 05:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, a new bot would be good. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional FL delegate proposal

An RfC for apropposed additional FL delegate is now open here. The discussion will run for ten days; all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Good Lists

There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Should WP:TAFI return to the main page?

Please weigh in here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#TAFI on the main page?.--Coin945 (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

David Bowie discography

If there's anyone here who regularly reviews discographies, your input at the following Talk:David_Bowie_discography#Singles_Table_is_confusing may be useful. Thanks, Bob Dawson 1966 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discography pages

I would suggest not giving discography articles featured list status because they need constant updating, and when they are not checked and maintained regularly they become a mess of unsourced and wrong chart information, an example being Pearl Jam discography which I just checked and can't find the sources for some entries. This is not an isolated example as I have found others in the past and had tried to fixed them, but it is tedious work to have to check so many numbers. Awarding featured list status gives these articles unwarranted indication of accuracy which these pages do not necessarily deserve, as many editors abandon monitoring the pages once they have been awarded featured list status. Some of the entries also do not conform to guidelines per WP:CHART, for example not adding Bubbling Under chart to Hot 100 (e.g. just randomly checking, Pet Shop Boys discography, Alice in Chains discography which also appears to have wrong chart info). Hzh (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If you feel that any particular list is no longer of featured quality, please feel free to nominate it for removal at WP:FLRC. That said, I think it's beyond the remit of the FLC process to refuse to allow an entire category of lists to be featured based on not their present quality but the belief that in the future the nominator will not keep the list up to date. Any list that has the potential to expand based on future data has the potential to stop being up to date; we don't have a crystal ball at the time of nomination to see into the future to know if any given list will always remain of featured quality. --PresN 15:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless the artists or band have stopped releasing new music, then discography pages are by their nature not stable, therefore do not satisfy a requirement for featured status? At the least, set more stringent criteria for inclusion as featured lists. I'm just tired of seeing so many discography pages in featured lists with bad information. Hzh (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

If we took your logic, then half of the lists that are featured would have to be demoted because they are 'not stable'. As PresN states, we do not have a crystal ball to see into the future. If you are unhappy with the state of some of these lists, then you have two options. You can either improve them yourself, by adding the missing details or sources. Or, you can nominate them for removal. Do something about it if you are not happy with the status of some of these lists. NapHit (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That is the problem isn't it? If I want to complain about, say, Alice in Chains discography, and I notice a number is wrong, I could fix that, but how many else are there? You need more errors to justify a removal of status, but if I check all of them, then I might as well fix those as well, but that would take such a long time because there are so many numbers. And there are so many discography pages with similar problems, and I could spend all my time on Wikipedia fixing them, which I don't really want to do. I feel resentful that a page has been given featured status, but its numbers cannot be trusted. The featured status is of absolutely no guarantee of quality at all as far as discography article goes.

There is nothing wrong with removing half of featured lists if that is necessary to comply with the rules and make sure that there is a good standard in the featured lists. Even when the Alice in Chains discography was given featured list status here, you can see that large number of entries are completely unsourced (e.g. B sides and videos sections). The verifiability guidelines were simply ignored. The problems just accumulate, now I can see problems in the US chart positions in the singles section, where numbers are listed with no explanation as to what they are - they are not certainly Hot 100 numbers which they should be to be listed there (they are actually airplay, a component chart of Hot 100). This is just one random page I looked at in the Featured Lists, how many problems are there in other pages? Apply a more stringent screening process and you can eliminate a lot of such issues. Hzh (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To me, the only thing that we can ask of nominators is that the lists they work on meet the FL criteria at the time they are brought to FLC. Even lists that are about subjects from the distant past will require occasional maintenance, and we can't just assume that nobody will ever work on them again. In reality, there are plenty of editors who maintain the lists that they've worked on. The lists that you discuss are older promotions, and the standards have risen over time, so some of the items you mention (like the unsourced tables) would likely have led to opposition in a 2016 FLC candidacy. As Pres says, there are two things you can do if you see a list like this: make edits to improve the article or nominate it for delisting at FLRC. I know that if I was told that no list requiring updates could be featured, and nine of the ten FLs that I've worked on automatically lost their status even though I still maintain them, I would never want anything to do with the FL process again, and I'm sure others would feel the same way. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's a very simple way of ensuring that there's no misleading of our readers, and that's to put a date against the chart positions/sales volumes, as if to say "figures correct as of ...". Now, chart figures are highly unlikely to vary, unless an artist dies and has a back-catalogue re-released, or a particular song is used in a popular movie, advert or television show, but sales figures may vary with time. It's very common to read people's complaints about finding an error and then feeling under no obligation to help fix the issue, just to remark upon it, draw a strawman argument (e.g. "all discographies are potentially wrong so none should be featured) and disappear back into the woodwork. This approach is not helpful at all, not to the project nor to the reader. Hzh if you care enough, please identify those numbers in those discographies with which you have issue, and the rest of us will fix your issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is totally unnecessary to add a date to the figures because the dates are in the sources (you see it in some pages and it is annoying). The situation with sales figures is exactly the same as certifications which may be awarded or have its certification upgraded years afterwards, and many certifications don't change even if the songs or albums have sold enough to qualify for higher certifications. We can't really have a page littered with unnecessary extra notes when you can just click at the sources. Chart figures also do change over time, sometimes they become a hit only years later (e.g. if the songs are featured in some shows, publicity due to death of artists, re-issue, re-recordings, etc.). I've already shown the problem in the singles figures in the Alice in Chains discography (as well as citation issues), and I will certain have it nominated for removal of its featured list status if nothing changes. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to fix the few issues you believe you've uncovered and want to take it to FLRC instead, be our guest. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That is the issue, isn't it? You have a situation where you feel obliged to check if you want to nominate a page for WP:FLRC, and if you have checked you might as well changed it, and once changed the article may no longer qualify for removal of status. The whole thing is circular. The point however we should not have to be in the situation of having to check the numbers anyway for a featured lists, especially when there are a huge number of figures to check in many discography pages. I do try to fix some discography pages, but it is when you have to fix a featured list article that it becomes annoying. I would argue that, at the least, if a discography page is not regularly maintained, then it should automatically lose its status. Hzh (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes "regularly maintained"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I should guess when no one bothers to change erroneous or inappropriate entries, like the Alice in Chain discography where you find figures for other charts (Bubbling under and Airplay) entered in the Hot 100 column. Hzh (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you propose that's identified? And generically? And when you say "no-one bothers", you know that includes you, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

There are no (or not enough) regulars who keep the article in good shape. I don't keep an eye on the Alice in Chain discography, I only clicked on it randomly among the articles given in the Featured Lists just to check the quality of the articles listed. There must be many more such similar articles. No one person can do everything in Wikipedia, and it is up to individuals to keep an eye on the articles they are interested in, and when an article has no one keeping an eye on it, then it cannot stay the same quality to warrant inclusion in a featured lists. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you contact the main authors? If you know of errors, have you highlighted them in the article or the talk page? Are you going to do some of the fixing yourself? Or are you you just going back to the woodwork? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you know people aren't looking after these articles? how do you know about these errors? Why doesn't your complaint apply to all Wikipedia content that may change over time? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

When you say "appears to have wrong chart info", what do you mean? Can you be precise so fixes can be made, or is it just a feeling you have? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if there are people looking after those pages, and they don't comply with the guidelines for featured list (e.g. sourcing) or indeed guidelines per WP:CHART (e.g. not violating WP:SYNTH on chart entries), then the articles are by their nature not of a standard worthy of featured status. And yes, it would apply to all Wikipedia content that may change over time when they are not regularly maintained to a good standard, although I do see more problems with discography pages. Hzh (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hzh then by all means note all the errors you "appear" to have found in one of these discographies. That would give us a chance to fix it. If you can't do that then I'm not sure how we can action your "complaint". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see you attempting to fix the Alice in Chain discography page I already mentioned, why are you asking for more? Hzh (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hzh I haven't seen a clear indication of what you decreed needs fixing. I don't see anything that you've clearly highlighted. More importantly, I haven't seen some kind of endemic failure in discographies. I think you've highlighted an age-old and very-well-known issue that pages go out of date. Big deal. This is Wikipedia. Do something about it. Alternatively, just complain about it and walk away. Your choice. P.S. Standards do change you know. The Alice in Chains discog you seem so worked up about was promoted nearly eight years ago. If you really think it no longer meets current standards, by all means nominate it at WP:FLRC. That would actually be doing the Wikipedia some good, if you believe that no longer meets our current FL bar. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how clearly it needed to be stated that unsourced content is a problem (specified in guidelines for qualification for granting Featured list status), or that the guidelines per WP:CHART are not being followed. I'm not worked up about Alice in Chain discography, it is simply one random example I looked at. And yes, I have already said that I will nominate it for WP:FLRC if it is not fixed, please don't ask me to keep repeating everything or tell me things I have already said. Hzh (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Then since you are unwilling to tag exactly what is problematic, I'm sure we are look forward to your contribution(s) at FLRC. It will be a joy to serve your demands. I hope you'll be extending this discussion to include FAs that are out of date too. I would hate to think that discogs are your only beef. At least at FLRC you'll be asked to explain precisely what is wrong and where it's wrong, rather than just fall back on personal feelings like also appears to have wrong chart info. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I should leave this discussion when someone doesn't even know what "unsourced" signifies and needed to be told what to do exactly. As for wrong chart information, look at the column under US in the singles section. Why don't you check what those numbers are when I have already clearly stated they are problematic? Hzh (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, you should leave the discussion. Some of the article is unreferenced, and that should be addressed, but if you know chart info is incorrect, you should actually fix it. In any case, we're done here. Your "complaint" is precisely why we have processes like WP:FLRC and WP:FAR, because articles become outdated or fail to meet current standards. If you don't know that, then I'm glad to have let you know! See you around FLRC! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, based on edits like this, I don't think we should be taking much advice from Hzh on how to write articles here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I would advice you to stick to the discussion at hand. You are close to violating, or have already violated, a few Wikipedia rules. Hzh (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You would "advice" me? "rules"? And you've wasted a lot of time. Time for us to do something more useful, like improve articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Organizing List of Alien characters

I'm currently reworking this article, as it has simply not been up to par at all. My goal is to eventually have it become a Featured List, (don't laugh), but as there are so few Featured Lists about characters, I am not entirely sure what organizational structure to pursue. At the moment, the article is organized by first the main and prequel series, then by the characters introduced in their specific movie. Regardless, I'm going to continue to rework the article to include brief synopses of the characters, then some conceptual details. However, I could use some input on the best way to organize! Also, if anyone would like to help contribute, that would be welcome.

Some specific question I have include...

• Should there be subsections for each individual character?
• Should the page cover the minor characters, or should it only cover the big players and then the more prominent secondary characters?
• Should the article be organized by the main characters, like Ripley, the Alien, Shaw, then the secondary characters? (I think this would be fine only if we don't include the very minor characters that are plentiful in Alien 3 and Prometheus. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, DarthBotto. We don't have many character FLs, but there are a few in the video game category. Try having a look at Characters of God of War for some general ideas. Of course, what is appropriate for a video game character list might not work for yours. For example, the God of War list includes minor characters, but you may not want to go into that level of detail. Also, a video game might not have as many major new characters introduced over time as this franchise has had. While I'm here, you should probably point out in a note or somewhere else that the Alien vs. Predator movies are being excluded from the list; it becomes confusing when they are not included after being mentioned in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)