Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FLC)
The closure log
edit · history · watch · refresh

Comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs), PresN (talk · contribs), and Hey man im josh (talk · contribs), and other notes of pertinence. Should you wish to contact the delegates, you can use the {{@FLC}} ping facility.

FLC
  • Unsuccessful
    • None
  • FLCs of special note
    • We now have many lists in need of more attention. See here for the oldest ones. Please do what you can to contribute to these nominations!
FLRC
  • Kept
    • None
  • Delisted
    • None
  • FLRCs of special note
    • None
Shortcut

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured lists/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer. To send a message to the FLC director and the FLC delegates, use the {{@FLC}} template.

Idea: Allowing for multiple lists within a single nomination

[edit]

A lot of featured lists tend to be in series drawing from the same set of sources. Nominators, having interest in a broad subject area, often try to fill out this entire series into FLs. These also tend to have identical or near-identical formatting and structures.

List of New Orleans Saints seasons, List of Detroit Lions seasons, List of Washington Commanders seasons, and List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons are mainly sourced to Pro-Football-Reference.com, with nearly identical formatting and list 'design'. Where their sources differ, it's minor distinctions about the context of each team. Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season, etc. are similar; all are mainly sourced to NHC reports, all within the same database.

To me, it seems like we're unnecessarily stifling the rate at which we can promote deserving articles to FL status by only allowing a single list within a single nomination. It is not significantly more work to check the sourcing on a dozen articles drawing from the same database than it is to check one. Many of these sorts of lists are so prose-light that they're easy to check through; and that leaves formatting, which again, tends to be identical.

I think folks should be allowed to nominate a batch of lists simultaneously, so long as they are reasonably identical in their format and sourcing; in general, series of lists that would require significantly less effort to review in a batch as opposed to each one individually. I think it's important to note this wouldn't just mean similar subject matter; lists on the individual Academy Awards tend to have wildly varying sources and formats, because the main sourcing here isn't a big database of academy award winners; it's contemporary news coverage, and reviewing one of these doesn't really tell you anything about the others. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've (or at least I've) considered this before, and rejected it for a few reasons:
  1. While in the best case scenario it would work as described, more likely it results in less rigorous reviewing. What it seems like you're saying is "more formulaic lists in a series take less time to review, so it would be more efficient to nominate them in blocks of 4, which then would take as much time to review as a single non-formulaic list." But, just to pick an example, ChrisTheDude has done over 150 lists of music charts. Each list is a table with a lede, and certainly follows a formula. But even on their latest nomination people find small points to comment on. So, even our most prolific series-of-lists isn't getting and shouldn't get just a rubber-stamp review on each entry. If they nominated them in blocks of 5, would they get the same level of review, or would it become a rubber stamp? I think the latter.
  2. There's no objective way to determine what list series should count. Does the Billboard series count? Probably. Does the World Heritage Sites series? Maybe, but there's a lot of in-table prose that's always unique. What about my animal lists? They're all similar, but often super-long with a lot of little details to check. What about accolade lists- they're all very similar, but by different nominators. Does that count?
  3. If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations, then we incentivize formulaic lists over non-formulaic. I don't think formulaic lists are bad at all, but I don't want to disincentivize the more unique or difficult lists.
  4. If "some types" of lists get the right to have block nominations and there's no objective criteria, then we give the impression that their nominators are first-class citizens and everyone else has to stay in the slow lane for not being as prolific.
  5. We already have a mechanism for formulaic lists to go faster: they get reviewed quicker. There's a reason ChrisTheDude has so many FLs: his nominations get closed after 3 weeks pretty much on the dot.
I know that we all want good lists to get promoted as fast as possible, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. --PresN 21:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with PresN, it seems like a good idea, but in practice likely wouldn't improve the project. Although featured content exists to incentivize, reward and acknowledge excellent articles, it shouldn't be the (only) goal. A good list exists for the benefit of the reader, regardless of whether it has the star in the corner or not. The star doesn't even show up on mobile view! There's no rush to getting the star or any other formal recognition. I currently have 16 active WP:GANs and 2 active WP:FLCs. Do I wish they got reviewed quicker? Sure! But I would prefer a more thorough and thoughtful review over pure speed of promotion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would LOVE to nominate a batch of lists and get it completed faster, but, I think it would result in the batch being of worse quality than if the nominations were more spread out. The last series I worked on and completed, first-round NFL draft picks, I ended up learning from almost every one that I nominated. The things I learned, and the improvements that were suggested, I went back and applied to all of the other lists I did and kept it in mind for the future. I think had I nominated them together I wouldn't have gotten the quality reviews I did because people would get worn out reviewing the batch. Does that then become part of the gaming of the system? A large batch which would be difficult to properly review in depth all at once?
I agree with PresN on the points they made. It's a good idea in theory, and I (and I think the rest of the team) appreciate, welcome, and encourage any and all suggestions and criticisms, but I don't think this one plays out well in actuality.
Thank you for your suggestion and thank you for caring enough about promoting content (because I know you very genuinely do) to make this post. I want to hear your pitches for how we can be doing better or improve things, so please don't be shy if you have any other thoughts and time. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - I know my post was "I don't think so", but I'm also genuinely interested in making the process better. To pull out an example, other people pushed for us to close nominations more aggressively a few months back, and I was hesitant, but while it's hard to say that it was causation vs. correlation we've had way more promotions this summer than ever before. (Could also be our endless shilling on Discord.) If people have ideas to improve things- (promote after 2 weeks instead of 3? Allow more simultaneous nominations? Have another 3 delegates?) We would love to hear them. The delegates were chosen for many reasons, but "best opinion havers" wasn't one of them. --PresN 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something along the lines of "if you have at least two supports and no outstanding concerns, then you can nominate another FLC, regardless of how many you have open"? I feel like that could increase the flow rate of promotions while still making sure that each individual list receives proper scrutiny, though it might not hurt to cap successive nominations to a point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As PresN mentioned above, the most quickly nominated ones are the most formulaic, and so I think the increased "flow rate" would be unproblematic, as most of the new workload would be easy reviews.
To keep things orderly with higher volume, maybe we could have a separate "bucket" to put ones that are ready for promotion and just need to wait out the clock? Checking people's work seems like a distinct task from reviewing it from scratch, and I'd worry about nominations that really need the review getting lost in a sea of the more formulaic stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to consider something like that I think it would make sense to have a minimum time between nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Maybe a week, or ten days? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A week seems reasonable. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we expand the number of simultaneous nominations, I think we should consider some form of quid pro quo, whether it's the explicitly defined requirements used at DYK, a system of sorting by reviews like at GAN, or something else. If we do add more simultaneous nominations (which I would push against – there is WP:NORUSH to collect accolades), my personal pitch would be to require 2 reviews for every additional simultaneous nomination after the first two, with FLC delegates allowed to block nominations if it seems like the required reviews are too cursory and are gaming the system. I think this is reasonable for people who are engaged at FLC without being too onerous. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's really necessary - we already have a de facto quid pro quo; if you don't review, you don't get reviews very quickly, and if you review a bunch, you hardly have to wait at all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with FLC, as with all the other similar processes, is not enough reviewers. So I think the solutions we should be focusing on is how to get more reviewers. These solutions seem to be more focused on how we can get more FLCs passed quickly, which is an admirable goal, but doesn't necessarily enhance the process. As I said above, the addition of the star doesn't move the dial much for our readers. Some ideas that could be more focused on getting more reviewers:
  • Mandating a talk page notification to at least the most relevant WikiProject (I know article alerts exists, but a personal message notifying a WikiProject of a new FLC and requesting subject matter experts to review it likely could be more impactful)
  • Adding the number of FLCs and number of reviews after each nominator (similar to what is done at WP:GAN, would require a bot and some data analysis)
  • Identifying first-time nominators in the nomination page so that reviewers can focus on those noms first and hopefully bring new FL editors to the process
  • Adding to existing page notices with a big banner laying out that although there is no QPQ, the quickest way to move a nomination forward is to review other nominations
  • Empowering our coordinators to be more quantitative in passing noms (i.e. if a nom has been open for 2 weeks, has 3 or more supports, and has a source review, then promote immediately; this could be made automatic by a bot flagging noms that are ready for promotion)
  • Create a week-long "reviewer drive" every 3 months or so where the regulars press pause on nominating and we focus on reviewing other noms
Just spit-balling some ideas. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just wanted to add on a little. Right now there are 51 nominations on the FLC page. 14 of those have 3+ supports and are possibly eligible for promotion right now. Only 7 of those 51 have taken longer than one month to resolve as the writing of this comment, and only 2 of those 7 have struggled to find support. Those 2 have struggled a bit for unique reasons (one has predominantly foreign sources, the other is a text-heavy list). I actually think FLC is working pretty well! Kudos to everyone who participates here. I will also note that FLC works really well for editors who review other noms! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that last part better encapsulates what I was getting at above – quid pro quo is already unofficially followed by more active editors at FLC, and making the requirement official in some way might allow some way for them to be recognized. Maybe it would just be better to be more upfront about how editors who perform reviews will often receive more reviews in return; just a small note in the nomination instructions might encourage new nominators to get more involved right away. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another nom?

[edit]

My current candidate Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1987–88 snooker world rankings/archive1 has been open since 26 July and, at the time of writing this, has three supports and no opposes. Would it be OK for me to make another nomination? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Typically for someone who has a few successful nominations under their belt, and is in good standing, we're fine to let them make a second nom after a bit of time after the first, so long as everything on their first has already been addressed. You fit this description, so go right ahead. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text Alignment in Tables

[edit]

Is anyone familiar with an WP:MOS regarding text alignment in tables. My typical approach has been text (like names, places or things) should be left-aligned, while values (like years, stats, etc) should be centered. I don't really hold nominators to my standard, but I try to make sure that it is consistent (so all text has the same alignment). That said, I noticed that the accessibility features inherently center text, which sometimes isn't desired. Just curious if there is some way to standardize the approach to text alignment? Thanks for any insight! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo fan2007: not that I'm particularly familiar with what WP:MOS says about table text alignment but regarding certain values, like population statistics, I was advised in my previous FLNs to align right to make it easier to compare the two population columns. Also, for text, so far I've gone through successfully with multiple FLNs using a combination of both left and center alignment (see this FL for an example; I keep one of the name columns center aligned while the other two text columns are left aligned). That said, going through other articles listed at WP:FL, I think considering the lack of consistency there's no hard policy on this. Probably best to do a case by case approach, with no need to standardize it considering what might work for an FL about one topic probably won't work as well on an FL about another topic. Hope my thoughts help! :) Dan the Animator 02:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually just do everything left aligned since you can't do alignment in the visual editor. Reywas92Talk 14:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum length for an FL?

[edit]

Hi everyone, I wanted to post here to get other thoughts about this: what is the maximum length allowed for a successful FLN? I've been working on improving the list List of villages in Donetsk Oblast for a while and was hoping to bring it through the FL process eventually but considering there's 968 items in the list, I was wondering whether it would be possible to get it promoted. For comparison, the longest FLs I've seen so far are about 300ish items long. The topic itself is very notable and I have access to all the 2001 census population statistics for each village, plus the administrative divisions/locations/etc., so the main consideration is what direction would be best to take for the article. Curious to hear other opinions! :) Thanks, Dan the Animator 02:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard limit as far as FLC is concerned, but there are practical limits- specifically, depending on the format, a ~1000 item list may be a) too long for readers to realistically browse through, b) take too long for the page to load to be appropriate, or c) be so long that the wiki software just cuts off the page. The last one depends on how many templates and references you're using; I've hit it at ~300 items on my animal lists. The first two are subjective, however. Without seeing the final product it's hard to judge, but I'd recommend going ahead and making the list and then use your judgement on whether reviewers are going to ask that it be split up into smaller lists like (A-M)/(N-Z). --PresN 02:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PresN! :) That makes sense. I guess the main thing I'm not sure about is whether it would be practical to tabulate the villages like I have them in the List of cities in Donetsk Oblast article. I think the separate list idea is great but I'm not sure it would make as much sense then if it's tabulated, since it'll prevent any meaningful comparisons on the statistics (since the data would be split up amongst tables on separate articles). Also not sure how that would affect creating the lead since having alphabetical dividers is mostly arbitrary and the leads would probably have to be duplicated amongst the lists.
Maybe do you think it would be possible to get the list promoted without tables? I'm thinking, even if its less informative, the current bullet list format the article uses would probably be better. The list is already complete (all 968 villages are listed) so the size won't really change but adding in tables would stretch out the list a lot. Also was thinking of having the table overfill to the side but maybe that's too confusing? Dan the Animator 03:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overfill to the side would be confusing, yeah. I don't think that a bulleted list would be too bad, but maybe there's a midpoint between just the name+district and the full name/ukr name/district/2022pop/2001pop/change of the table. Maybe something like
  • Andriivka (Андріївка) - 74 / 0
And have a section at the top explaining that it's "english name (ukr name) - 2001 population / 2022 estimated population"? Or something in between, it's your list. It's really not the amount of content you need to worry about, it's presenting it in such a way that you're not forced to have one village per row - even 3 columns would probably be just fine.
I don't disagree with RunningTiger123, though, it's possible that just a wikitable like the cities list would still be viable, just very long. --PresN 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The longest FL I recall is List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, which has ~750 entries, so ~1000 entries isn't too much of a stretch. As long as you don't have a bunch of images, I wouldn't imagine there would be major issues with loading, either. The only other issue I can think of is the post-expand include size, but from my experience the biggest contributor to that can be citation templates, and since you'd presumably be using only a few references for large portions of the list, I wouldn't expect issues there. So personally I think it would be better to keep everything in one list (and preferably in a table if you're going to include other statistics so that people can sort by them), but that's just me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1,218 entries at List of municipalities in Quebec. Hwy43 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm leaning towards trying out the table based on what RunningTiger123 said and the Quebec list that Hwy43 linked. Even if it gets on the longer side, it probably won't be as long as the GoT or Quebec lists (which thanks RunningTiger123 and Hwy43 for linking them! :) This list will take a while to finish up but I'll bring it through FL when its ready. Thanks everyone for the feedback! ;) Dan the Animator 21:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewers needed

[edit]

I've noticed for some time, and especially lately, that we're sorely lacking in individuals willing to complete source reviews. In doing source reviews, I typically evaluate the following:

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Links are not dead, and if dead, are marked as such
  • References verify what they're meant to verify (spot checks may be appropriate for experienced editors who are continuing a series, such as lists of Billboard number ones, but non-FLC regulars should be checked more thoroughly)

Even if you want to contribute and help out with source reviews by calling out that you did the first half of them, every bit helps, and that may make someone else more willing to step up and finish where you left off. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Proposal to Refine WP:FLCR #6

[edit]

Centralizing the discussion. Please see the above link for my proposal regarding the WP:FLCR. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1258170206"