Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:53, 17 June 2015

Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning. Thank you for your cooperation.

• WT:FLC

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bad supports

Okay, as promised here, I just want to make a quick mention that standards here seem to be lower than I can ever recall. Many candidates receive a support vote without the voter making any comparison with our criteria. It seems evident that a few editors are helping each other out without upholding our standards. I will do my best to ensure these lists have extra scrutiny. In the meantime I hope the rest of the community can help out too and review some of these candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm highly offended that you are accusing me and others of "helping each other out." I'd really like to see your evidence of this (as it is clearly speculation on your part) in order to eradicate your use of WP:BADFAITH.  — ₳aron 21:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You can be as offended as you like, it's not relevant. The quality of the review of the list I linked is key, so many supports for such a poor list. Thankfully it's improved sufficiently because other reviewers have applied the criteria to it. It's nothing to do with bad faith, more to do with lack of competence for some reviewers who supported a list which was abundantly below the standards we seek to be "Misplaced Pages's finest". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you see that's where you're wrong. It's completely relevant, because you're accusing me and others of doing something without any kind of evidence what-so-ever. Please give me the evidence, such as me asking editors to support, and then you may have a valid case. That is a very dangerous game to play. Furthermore, your edit summary is another example of your not assuming good faith.  — ₳aron 21:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No you're right, I don't assume good faith when many lists here have "support" from the get-go yet six weeks later there are massive issues with them. Either the reviewers lack the ability to review lists or something else is going on. I will make sure that every single list of this nature is reviewed properly from now on. Like the Ariana Grande list, if people were happy to support back in late-March, we have a massive problem with our process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not evidence of "helping each other out". I didn't ask anyone to comment or support. They came of their own accord, commented, and voted. So I'm yet to see a valid case put forward by yourself of this "helping each other out" accusation.  — ₳aron 21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall suggesting you asked for it. But the shockingly low standards of some reviewers here needs closer examination, particularly when they themselves nominate lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've said in each reply here to you... but whatever. You're clearly choosing to ignore because you can't supply it.  — ₳aron 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already provided one example of a list review where supports where given to a way substandard list. That you benefitted from it is another matter. Enough is enough, time to start setting the standard back up a notch or three. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999, @The Rambling Man: Speaking only for myself as a (new) FLC delegate, when I see several supports with little comment besides "great job" followed by one or more lengthy reviews (opposing or not), I'm not inclined to ascribe much weight to the supports. It does give the impression that the reviewers did not review closely. I'm not going to go so far as to accuse anyone of a formal support trading system or anything; while it certainly can give off that impression it's more likely to me that the other supporters don't realize that they aren't helping out. I would instead ask that you remind other editors at the music wikiproject that bare supports on a list that others easily find (fixable!) issues with aren't really helpful; they need to review the list more deeply. WP:VG used to have a similar problem at FAC- no one would be asking for easy supports, but other editors didn't realize that they weren't actually being helpful by giving a cheap review. It's easy to fix, and not the end of the world. The Rambling Man is heavily invested in the FLC process; he's just trying to point out a problem, not attack you (Aaron) directly. --PresN 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo. The last thing our process needs is a QPQ system (especially an "unwritten" one), much like DYK, where oftentimes crap can pass to the main page. I'm trying hard to uphold the standards we've worked for years to maintain. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Competent reviewers seem to be put off song and discography lists in a process similar to adverse selection, whereby bad reviewers are drawn because good reviewers, due to a dislike of the topic or the editors involved, avoid the topic and don't invest their time. I don't know a solution, but that's the problem. Seattle (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well there's certainly a core of FLC contributors who assist one another with their female singer lists right now. I am dedicated to making sure all the early supports aren't just accepted at face value. A part of the solution is to make sure you (Seattle) and others, if they have the time and energy, review these lists objectively. In the past few weeks I've found countless issues with lists that have overwhelming support from the in-group. To help the FL directors and delegates, we need to keep making our reviews and opinions as open and thorough and loud as possible to prevent these easy passes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with TRM. Sometime back, in one of the nominations, a reviewer had offered their support without even knowing that it was an FLC. Of late, a new breed of reviewers (who don't even have an idea about our criteria) have increased participation over the process. I see some not-so-good lists getting overwhelming supports with in a few days after nomination. Extra scrutiny, in some form, is badly needed here. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. I had some time on my hands so I just checked out the most likely to be promoted FLC, namely List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2011. It was nominated by User:HĐ on 6 May and was supported without any kind of comment six hours later by a user with over 12,000 edits. Next, eleven minutes later, we saw a support from User:Listmeister who could only find the fact it was a 2011 list an issue. Worst of all, less than six hours after that, i.e. less than twelve hours after the nomination listed, we had an administrator, User:Carioca, who has been editing longer than me, giving an unqualified support to the list. Since then, we see critical reviews from User:Cowlibob and User:A Thousand Doors, neither of whom are happy with this situation. Then I reviewed the list. Sub-standard doesn't quite cover it. About time we started to disqualify these supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I am not trying "to help anyone out" here. It was my first time voting regarding this and I might have been a bit too quick in giving my support without having a thorough understanding of the process. But it was not in any "bad faith". I primarily only paid attention to the rankings have been well-sourced. I will carefully review the whole process next time if I ever do it again. Thank you very much.--TerryAlex (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: since so many of these nomination issues seem to involve music-related lists, I've left (what I hope is) a reasonable statement of the issue and request that reviewers look a little more in depth before supporting at WT:ALBUM, WT:SONGS, and WT:WPMU. Turns out WP:MUSIC is the shorthand for the notability guidelines, and not the parent music project for some reason? --PresN 02:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobel laureates of India

Can I demand a bit more reviews and comments of this FLC? Thanks..-The Herald (Benison) • _{my strength} 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't demand it, request or ask for it perhaps. But it's on my list. I'll see what I can do later tonight. Finally, what is Benison? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Benison is an archaic word for "a blessing". Cowlibob (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: He got his reply in his talk page. It meant benediction, a blessing, above all, its my real life name. -The Herald (Benison) • _{my strength} 08:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured list/Statistics up to date

For the first time since March 10, 2014, the Misplaced Pages:Today's featured list/Statistics page and archives are up to date! This will be of great interest to... basically no one, but I put enough effort into it over the past month that I thought I should announce it. Look in fascination at such wonders as... the page views that most lists get vs. the top well-timed ones! That time that 7 lists' nominators in a row had names ending in numbers! That time 5 lists in a row had titles that didn't start with "List of"! The 3 times we've had TFLs without a picture! All very, very interesting. Of course. --PresN 01:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, that must have taken ages. Thanks for doing it. We're not doing particularly well at TFL in terms of views. Apart from the 40k for the Oscars list on the day of Oscars, only two others with 10k. The TFL's main page requests area needs to be more prominent. PresN's idea of leaving a note informing about main page requests should help with that. In regards to the Main Page requests for TFL area there are so many which were submitted ages ago which disheartens people from submitting there as they don't know if and how they are selected or if it'll be left there to rot as hardly anyone votes there. There should be an archiving process also to allow new nominations a better shot. Cowlibob (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Another big thank you to PresN. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• At WP:TFLS I have seen lists submitted a long time ago (I am not talking about my submissions), yet it has no response. If this keeps happening, I am afraid editors will stop submitting their lists one day. Not complaining, but wish it was also considered as importance as WP:TFAR. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 00:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Community consensus regarding article titles

At Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Arshad Warsi, roles and awards/archive1, one reviewer has opposed for lack of consensus regarding titles. I was asked to change the title of the list and so I moved it to List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi. Now the reviewer opines that other editors would object to this title. What can I do here? I can't create consensus on my own. I hope someone would respond. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• The entire titling issue a hurricane in a thimble. Personally, I wouldn't consider objections over the title "because there is no community consensus" to be actionable. The MOS doesn't standardize list titles, so we have many different titles that we've accepted in the past. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I am the editor to which Skr15081997 is referring. As I've stated during the FL nomination, I really don't feel that we should be promoting anymore articles of this type until we have some consensus over the article title (which, lest we forget, does form part of the WP:FLC). ", roles and awards" titles are still extremely contentious. We currently have three FLs of this type, and the title format has been brought up at the nomination page for every single one of them. Many other editors have also raised objections to the titles (see, for example, the ones that I list here). Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards has had somewhere in the region of eighteen thousand words of debate on this one subject, and that's to say nothing about the discussion over at Category talk:Filmographies. Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards was actually promoted under the title Roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut, before being moved four minutes later to its current title, for no reason that I can see other than the editor's personal preference. So I guess that's another problem that I have with these articles: lack of stability (also a featured list criterion).

If whichever featured list delegate who chooses to close the nomination feels that my objections are not worth considering, that's his/her decision. I have made my opinions clear, and I stand by them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• By way of reminder there was an extensive discussion over one of the article titles which was closed with no consensus to change. The fact that you didn't like the outcome is painfully obvious, but that's life. Time to move on as this is unconstructive now. Dragging the question up every time someone rightly uses the title in good faith, they are harassed in the FLC by a threat of an oppose !vote that they feel forced to change it: this is not good. The consensus from that discussion was against you and your lack of respect for that, based on nothing by your own personal preference does you no credit at all. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Current title, "List of... " seems far more appropriate than the original which was awkward and non-standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

Just done a fair bit of work on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, but I'm a bit stumped as to whether it qualifies more as a list or an article. Any thoughts on whether it would be more appropriate here at FLC, or over at GA/FA? Harrias 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Giants2008, Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN: Any thoughts director and delegates? Harrias 15:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  Looks like a good list.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• LOL - I was possibly going to say article (with reservations)! It's one of those that is borderline and would happily sit in both camps, I think. Ian Rose, from an FAC perspective, would you have this down as list or article? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• My personal expectation for a literary work (i.e. a short story collection) would be FAC. But it's missing critical reception (contemporary reviews). That will certainly be an issue at FAC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I do like a consensus! My first thought was GA/FAC, but the main issue I came across was the fact that as each story was individually released first a lot of the information seems more relevant in the article for the story than in here: for example, there is very little critical reception on the collection, but plenty on each individual story. I could add in such a section and expand this into more of an article, but I don't want to go too in depth on each story, given they all have their own articles. Harrias 16:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here's one way of doing it: do we have any FAs on collections/anthologies? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be much that is particularly relevant at either FA or FL. GA has The Ladies of Grace Adieu and Other Stories and For Your Eyes Only (short story collection), which seem the closest matches in terms of scope. Harrias 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• For Your Eyes Only (short story collection) is a damned fine GA too! - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• With possibly the most laughable GA review I've ever seen – not that I'm questioning its worthiness! Harrias 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree - and I wasn't over happy with it in the first place! Still, give it a year or so and I'll get round to upgrading it to an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm... still feels like a tough pickle to me. I'm leaning FL now, since most of the stories have their own articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh, I can't make up my mind. I've seen FLs with that much intro text, and I've seen articles with a table that big too. My vote is that it's your call- I'd be willing to promote it if it passed at FLC, but I'd also be fine with it at FAC (though I would want to see a reception section in order to actually support, so given your above comments it may just be in your best interest to go for FLC on that alone.) --PresN 17:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks Schro for the ping. Yes, not easy -- I'm persuaded most by the point highlighted by Chris and Pres, and suggest that in its current form it might be best at FLC but add a reception section to round it out and you'd have a fair nom for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've decided to approach this from a slightly different angle. I've added in a "critical reception" section (though I've only included more generic reviews, rather than of specific stories), and opened a peer review (Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes/archive1). I'd invite any or all of you to have a look, and hopefully the review can help to shape the article further, and it might become clearer which route it should head along. Harrias 06:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I think this is one of the most borderline FAC/FLC cases I can remember. I'd lean toward this being a regular article now that a reception section has been added, but I honestly wouldn't object if this was nominated at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Humbly request more reviews

Hello. I put Shinhwa discography up for FL review quite some time ago, and only one person has made any comments. From reading older entries here, I see that discographies are somewhat hated here, but I improved the article in good faith and as what I'd hoped would be a way for me to introduce myself to the world of Good- and Featured-level article editing. Maybe it's really horrible, but I'd at least like feedback. This is my first time attempting anything like this, and I had very little against which to compare the subject matter regarding format and lead (there is only one other FL in Korean music, and it has many, many shortcomings). Please don't feel you must avoid it because you don't know Korean; if people unfamiliar with the material can't understand the article then I need to know that so I can improve it further. Thank your time. Shinyang-i (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note

Delegates note that User:Imzadi1979 is arguing for argument's sake at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of census-designated places in West Virginia/archive1– with serious ownership issues by Imzadi1979 there as well. Seattle (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Red link#Proposal to permit redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Misplaced Pages talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)