Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/List of Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes

Moved from FLC

NuclearWarfare, what do you mean by "I don't like the current FLC system"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he would prefer if users were bold and just edited their fixes in, but that would imply that all lists sent to FLC could pass. NOCTURNENOIR ^{( t • c )} 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't even have to be that. Instead of writing the comments here, where they might be lost for eternity if the FLC isn't promoted, if they were written using the comment tags or even on the talk page, a future editor might come along and fix some of the mistakes. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the FLC isn't "lost for eternity"... Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For many FLCs, this would be true. But at many other FLCs, I would conjecture, all necessary points are not fixed in time. If the editor who had originally brought the article to FLC does not make the changes at a future date, very likely no one else will. If the article is abandoned, then the FLC will never be looked at again, in all likelihood. If an IP editor comes around at a future date and decides to fix a small grammar mistake, he might not notice the error in the next paragraph that had been pointed out during the FLC but never fixed. But if there were comment tags next to the issue, he might notice the fact that the paragraph is tagged with "" and fix that too. But if that point was in the FLC and never mentioned, there is a chance that no one will ever do it, and our articles will suffer as a result. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. However, littering the article with hidden comments would be distracting and messy. Perhaps a blanket note at the top of the article that says . Anyway, this is an interesting POV, which I think might be worth discussion at WT:FLC and WT:FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. WT:FLC, huh? I really don't have much confidence that lots of people watch those. If you helped me introduce that idea, that might help, as you seem to be a well-respected regular around here. I like your idea about adding a general notice; do you think you could help me introduce it for the failed FLCs and even the failed FACs? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I have the time. I will start a thread now, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You can do this anyway. Are you saying that this should be mandatory and something done by the reviewer? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. I hoped to work it so that after failed FLCs, we could post at the top of the article. For the other point, I hoped to make it more commonplace, but certainly not compulsory. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, I am having trouble posting at WT:FLC in a way that accurately reflects your thoughts and does not make it look like your suggestion is some revolutionary idea. Could you do it yourself? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll give it a shot. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]