Misplaced Pages

talk:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:40, 23 February 2011 editFinetooth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers123,692 edits →Any more for any more...: whoa!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:14, 27 December 2024 edit undoThebiguglyalien (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers19,557 edits →Sourcing for possible FLC at List of Iron Man enemies: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 4: Line 4:
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Closure log}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Closure log}}


{{Template:FCDW/T|style=font-size:88%; width:23em;}}
{{Shortcut|WT:FLC}} {{Shortcut|WT:FLC}}
{{archives {{archives
Line 10: Line 9:
|auto = long |auto = long
|search = yes |search = yes
|prefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list candidates/Archive |searchprefix = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list candidates/Archive


|bot=MiszaBot |bot=MiszaBot II
|age=10 |age=10
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 130K |maxarchivesize = 130K
|counter = 15 |counter = 23
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(10d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list candidates/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list candidates/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{dablink|For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see ] and ].}} {{dablink|For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see ] and ]. To send a message to the FLC director and the FLC delegates, use the {{tl|@FLC}} template.}}
__TOC__ __TOC__


{{-}}
== What to do when nominator gets banned? ==


== Maximum length for an FL? ==
Concerning the ], of ]. The nominator of the FLC, ] has been ] from Azerbaijan related articles and will therefore not be able to respond to comments. Twilight Chill is also the (] is the same as Twilight Chill) of the list. Should the FLC be postponed, cancelled or just continue as it does? ] (]) 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
:If someone is prepared to continue making changes then it continues. If we don't hear anything in the next week or so (and I've just added a heap of comments there) then we'll withdraw the nomination. It's not up to FLC to decide who can and who cannot edit Misplaced Pages... ] (]) 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
::OK. ] (]) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I will blue-pencil this list in the next days. Regards.--<span style="color:#A4D3EE; background-color:#E0EEEE;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"> ] </span><span style="color:Black; background-color:#A4D3EE;font-family: 'Gigi'">]</span> 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


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 ] 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, ] ] ] 02:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


: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). --''']]''' 02:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Would any of you care to review the ] list for me? It may fail due to lack of reviewer interest, can somebody just review the list. If so thanks, it's appreciated. --] (]) 08:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
::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 ] 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? ] ] ] 03:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::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. --''']]''' 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:The longest FL I recall is ], 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 ], 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. ] (]) 15:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::There are 1,218 entries at ]. ] (]) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::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! ;) ] ] ] 21:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)


== Source reviewers needed ==
== Number of nominations allowed at once ==


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:
Hey I just want to clarify something; as I understand it, each user is only allowed to have one FLC open at once. If someone has a co-nominator for their lists, how many are they allowed to maintain at once provided the co-nominator(s) is (or are) active and helps out with the FLC? ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
* Reliable enough for the information being cited
:Per the instructions, {{quote|A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.}}
* 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. ] (]) 14:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
A nominator and co-nominator are considered the same in this respect. ] (]) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:Alright, thanks for clearing that up. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Re: Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album ==


Centralizing the discussion. Please see the above link for my proposal regarding the ].<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 14:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
This nomination was a bit complicated, but I believe all concerns have been addressed and I tally five "support" votes. --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


== Query regarding geo-fenced reference urls ==
== Featured list on Main page ==


The ] has an archive of past results of elections, but it is geo-fenced to only be accessible within India (). I've had a discussion with a reviewer on one of my FLCs regarding this. I've currently used "|url-access=limited" to indicate this geo fencing, but this isn't ideal as it is meant for to show "free access is subject to limited trial and a subscription is normally required", per ]. The reviewer suggests that I remove this param and use "|url-status=dead" so that the archive url is shown first. This doesn't seem right to me as the url is live. Does anyone have a better option? -] (]) 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
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 ] and i think some regular FL contributors input would be greatly appreciated. --] (]) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:If featured lists were to be featured on the main page, I'm pretty sure we could just list the lead in a small section instead of showing the actual list. Shouldn't be too difficult, I'd think. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC) :My thoughts are that having the archived link come first provides accessibility to the most amount of people and makes verification easier. More context on this discussion can be found ].<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::This is really more of a "how should the citation template handle this case" question, so I've cross-posted it to ]. --''']]''' 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::The discussion is only about Featured sounds. So if we want a section for FLs, we would have start a separate proposal.—<font face="Cambria" size="3">]<sub>]/]</sub></font> 06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I read that-- I'm pretty sure the idea of bringing FLs to the main page before has been met with some contention in the past. We'd have to create a viable way for FLs to be brought up there, and even then I'm not sure if it would garner a lot of support. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 06:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I have started a proposal at ], it would be nice to get the opinions of some of our regular contributors over there. ] (]) 10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Long overdue. I'll be adding my tuppence. --] (]) 11:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
: I'll take a look as well. There are some great FLs that deserve some attention. --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
===Specific proposal #1===


== Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum ==
I think the best thing to do is to do the brainstorming here, as a list-oriented community, and once we have a well-defined proposal, take it to the main page talk. —]]]— 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:yellow;|contentstyle=border:1px lightblue solid; padding:10px;|header=Proposal capped; I'm 100% behind the one below |content=
''I have deliberately avoided stating how we would select a given week's specific main list, beyond designating topics. That process would inevitably be complicated, but more importantly has the potential to derail this entire process if focussed on too early. Therefore, I believe that we should <u>not</u> go into points systems or whatnot until we have consensus on the general system.''


Hi all, for a long, long time FLC has had an unwritten rule for how many items a list needed to have to meet the guidelines for a stand-alone list and therefore be eligible for FL: 10 items. In the past year, however, we've had more and more lists that were ''almost'' at ten items, asking for (and receiving) exceptions. These exceptions have been just based on how the delegates felt about it/how much surrounding text there was/whether it was part of a long-running series, though, which is not a fair standard, and has led to shorter and shorter lists, as low as 4 or 5 items, asking for exceptions.
'''Vision:''' a small, ] style lead paragraph + picture for one list per week, followed by 2-3 ] style entries without pictures. All 3-4 lists in a given day should be on different topic. Over a period of time we should make sure that we carefully balance the need to give fair representation to less-covered topics, with the fact that a high proportion of our lists fall into a relatively narrow range of subjects.


We've been discussing internally how to make a more objective standard, and have decided on lowering the unwritten standard to an explicit written standard: 8 items. These items do not have to be in a single table, but we do not feel that any shorter can really qualify as an FL.
'''First stab at the mechanics:''' 80% of the work will be choosing the lead list. There are 10 main topics at ]: Arts, Engineering and technology, Everyday life, Geography and places, History, Language and linguistics, Mathematics, Natural sciences, Philosophy and Religion, and Social Sciences and Society. For the purposes of the lead list, I propose that we work in a 13-week (3 month) cycle. Mathematics should merge with Natural Sciences based on size, giving us 9 main topics, while Arts and Everyday Life should each have two slots in a cycle. The 12th week would be exclusively for underrepresented sup-topics of the 7 main topics that have one slot. Note that underepresented sub-topics would therefore have two opportunities in a cycle; their topic's week, and the 12th week. The 13th week is deliberately left ambiguous at launch, so that we have room for manouevre when the process is in its infancy. It's there if we need it, if not we go to a 12-week cycle.


Note if this rule would affect a potential ] that that ]@3.c. allows for short lists to be included. We welcome discussion on this rule update, which goes into affect immediately. --''']]''' 15:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
So: the main lists over thirteen weeks would go something like:


:I would oppose a hard rule. Especially when considering sets of related articles, existing FLs like ] and ] (though these older ones are lacking in prose) are still fine to promote – their having fewer items than similar lists doesn't make them worse or unable to be featured. 3(c)'s parts on not being a content fork and "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" should be adequate. Many short lists should be merged, but many others I would not, such as these county lists. ] has other examples of these. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
1. Arts
::How do you propose we consider what to treat as an exception @]? My concern is that there would be creep without a hard rule, and the length of these lists is becoming more of an issue that we run into this past year from what I can tell. ] (]) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Engineering and technology
:::I do see that it's not always clear, but to me it comes down to whether it should be merged to another page, which unfortunately also depends on how many columns or how much descriptive prose there is and what the parent article is like. I've made this recommendation about short lists before myself, an sometimes even longer lists can be merged! I just don't like saying that some pages don't qualify for GA/FA/FL at all so folks might not want to put in effort to improve them even if beneficial. I see this stems from ]. Tone has done amazing work on WHS lists, though I also think the regional lists can be good and we don't necessarily need individual articles for every country so I agree with the sentiment there. Maybe 5 would be better. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Geography and places
::::@]: This has actually been a general guideline that was followed for a while now, with this just being codification of it. There was actually a few lists recently that this applied to, including another active nomination, so it's not that list in particular for what it's worth. The problem, for me at least, comes down to how we can apply a basic minimum length and what kind of clear and straight forward rules we can create for any type of exceptions that may exist to said rules, if any. There will always be folks who believe their list should be an exception, and it's better if it's codified in a way that doesn't come down to a judgement call on our behalf. I do get where you're coming from, but the length of some lists nominated is something that I've received some complaints about in the past, which is part of why we've discussed codifying it. I don't think we're necessarily stuck on this number, we just need to have some type of criteria that we can apply without it being as much of a judgement call. ] (]) 20:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Everyday life
:If we set a hard rule, we could imply that any list that hits that benchmark is automatically suitable as a stand-alone list (i.e., "my list meets the FLC criteria by having 10 items, so it must be a good stand-alone list"). I'm concerned that passing a "minimum item count" threshold will be seen as an implicit endorsement that the list meets ] / ] when the actual guidelines are much more nuanced. I also don't think there is a good way to define a set cutoff for ''all'' types of lists. As ], season articles can list well more than 5/8/10 episodes and still be better suited at GA/FA, and on the flip side as noted by Reywas92, there are short lists that ''are'' reasonable stand-alone lists.
5. History
:The whole point of an FLC nomination is to have a discussion about any issues – if list length is a issue, the discussion should be able to handle it. (See ] as an example.) ] (]) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Language and linguistics
::I disagree that setting a requirement for becoming a featured list equates to designating what is good enough to be a stand-alone list. I also believe the number of entries in a list is entirely irrelevant to whether a subject meets ]. For example, we saw quite a few broadcaster lists deleted this year that had a lot of entries and yet still failed NLIST. ] (]) 21:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Arts
:::I agree; I just think it's easy for less familiar editors to conflate guidelines for FLC (which the size limit would be) with guidelines for stand-alone lists (which the size limit would not be). I guess if there is a hard rule, which I still think isn't ideal for the second reason I noted, it should be clear this is only the former and not a NLIST / STANDALONE guideline. ] (]) 22:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Maths/natural sciences
:'''Comment''' I also find a hard rule challenging, but wouldn't necessarily be opposed. That said, maybe we carve out an exception for small lists when the topic is widely covered as a specifically named topic. As an example, 'List of counties by state' is a clear topic that is widely covered as such, regardless of size. Basically, does the list as titled and scoped meet (maybe a stringent reading of) ]? Is it part of a larger topic that makes sense to be broken out as such, even if that means some entries may be short.
9. Philosophy and religion
:Noting {{U|RunningTiger123}}'s example of ], that discussion did lead me to create ] and bring to FLC (anyone feel like doing a source review ]). That said, this example isn't really applicable to the 'List of counties by state' or 'List of World Heritage Sites in country' topics.<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 21:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Everyday life
11. Social sciences and society
12. Underrepresented sub-topics
13. ???


# The Featured List process does not have any special sway with interpretations of NLIST or STANDALONE. "It's long enough for FLC" has never been a winning argument for those discussions, and making our rule a hard 8 instead of a soft 10 does not change that. The wording of the rule is "it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists ''and'' includes at minimum eight items", not "''by including'' at minimum eight items".
For the DYK style part, previous DYKs and previous "headline" lists would be excluded (as we have 2,000 lists and growing, and 150-200 spaces a year). A delegate would pick 2-3 DYKs from different topics to one another and the main list. Being a sub-list should preclude the list from becoming a "headliner" for a long time (but not indefinitely), so for this reason the original FL nominators should be informed at an early stage, giving them the opportunity to decline selection if they want (rare, but conceivable) and hopefully en-list their help. Once the picks are finalised, a small task force of FL regulars would make any necessary fixes and suggest blurbs, with the final say resting with the delegate. All of this could be done as far in advance as we liked; we could easily build up a pool of these entries. I would tentatively suggest that everyday life is usually included, to help alleviate the bottleneck that articles there are inevitably going to face.
# We are open to finding a way to make clear guidelines that would allow things like List of counties in Hawaii or List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan, but have been unable to find a way that wouldn't apply to, well, any list at all. Almost any list can be thought of as being part of a (theoretical) series - List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award is part of a "list of (NFL team) players to win an MVP award" series. If anyone can come up with something, we can adjust it. --''']]''' 21:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)


== Sourcing for possible FLC at ] ==
It's not perfect, but initial thoughts? —]]]— 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:Hmm... I just want to clarify a few points and give some suggestions:
:*Would previous DYK lists be excluded form being the featured headline list?
:*Would the 2-3 other lists be listed in the format of a DYK (i.e. "... did you know that ] have won three Stanley cups?) or would we go with some other unique format? I'd love to be able to differentiate ourselves from DYK in some way, but I understand if it'd be easier to go with DYK style blurbs for our articles.
:*I think if a list is listed in this "DYK-style blurb", it should be eliminated from consideration as a headline article. Judging by the fact that it will no longer be given priority, unless there's a large exception, they shouldn't be brought back as there will be so many other lists behind them.
:I just have to admit, the idea of "Featured List Wednesdays" is really awesome. Putting that out there. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 07:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::*Only excluded from being a smaller one. It's rare that a list makes it as a DYK, and we would then be consistent with articles. A featured article couldn't be a DYK twice, but could be a DYK and later a TFA.
::*By "DYK-style blurb", I'm thinking more in terms of length and the overall aim; being a short, sharp, catchy introduction. I definitely don't think we should introduce a list with "Did you know... that"
::*Perhaps if we have some sort of "opt-out" system, that would work. I.e. if someone feels that a certain list has a prose section worthy of top billing one day (be they the original editor or a director/delegate/insert title here planning ahead for difficult to fill topics), the list won't end up there. That's the least dramatic way I can think of doing it. As an example, of the three FLs I've gotten promoted so far (plus the one that I'm one creation spree away from nominating), I would only choose to opt ] out.
:::And yes, FL Wednesday sounds awesome. —]]]— 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::I tend to agree, the tentative suggestions at ] for FL Wednesday are the ones I'd advocate. ] (]) 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
}}

===Specific proposal #2 (a.k.a. "walk before run")===
My view right now is relatively simple.
#We use the proposed featured sound proposal, but on Wednesday rather than Sat/Sun.
#We write a blurb in exactly the same way featured articles on the main page have.
#We (initially) select the list to be featured a few weeks in advance to allow for polishing etc, and the selection (initially) is by the directors. This may evolve into the current TFA model of suggestions, but as I said in the title, walk before run.
#We absolutely guarantee the community that lists we select will be verifiable, MOS-compliant (including ACCESS etc) etc etc and keep standards absolutely tip-top.
I think we have a great bunch of ideas in the section above, but I'm just focused on getting featured lists on the mainpage and if that means keeping it totally simple for the time being, so be it. We also get the coding of the front page effectively free as ] will be coding up the featured sound mods, and if we keep in-line with that, he'll code it with expansion to include FLs in mind too. ] (]) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

*I think this is what we should do now, walk before run. It is not even a sure thing that FLs will be on the main page.—<font face="Cambria" size="3">]<sub>]/]</sub></font> 20:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

*On reflection, as a starting point I think you're right. Keep it simple: one a week until we're up and running. Medium term, I think we could move to a rotation system, where each list is on for 6 hours. Directors aren't going to pick a list that's sub-standard to start with, so as long as we are confident that we have the ability to meet WP:V, four per week should be manageable. —]]]— 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

*I think this seems like a great direction to move first. Put your toes in the water before you jump in, I guess. I think it's important that the lists we feature though definitely get held to a high standard, we really need to check for ] concerns and the like. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
*As Adam says, we need to be pro-active about this if we want to strike while the iron is hot. I've done a rough draft of one of my lists . I think we need at least half a dozen samples, that are diverse in terms of field and (while accepting that there may be an inevitable degree of systemic bias towards English-speaking countries) geographic interest. I've done a sports list because that's what I know, but we need to give assurances that FL Wednesdays will not be dominated by sports, music and videogame minutiae (and for that reason it might be a good idea ''not'' to use mine). Perhaps if TRM were to select half a dozen decent lists that fit that criteria, and see if the original FL nominators would be willing to draft sample blurbs of ~1000 characters. If they aren't, we can always divide the work between ourselves. —]]]— 08:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
**Okay, how about the following:
**] - ]
**] - ]
**] - ]
**] - ]
**] - ]
**] - ]
**These are simply "different" (i.e. not sports/discogs/awards) lists to show some of the diversity we have around the project. I'll try to get round to letting the nominators know but have a busy day ahead, so if someone else could step in, that'd be great...! Any other suggestions would be good too... ] (]) 09:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Wow, there's a vote of confidence in ] (and from a Cambridge man too!) It is already in main page blurb style at ]. Depending on how much space we've got, it might have to be trimmed a bit, but it's the size of an average TFA blurb (1,215 characters; ] suggests 1,200, and today's TFA is 1,377). ]] 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::::I've done the notifications (didn't realise you'd already replied Bencherlite!). I think ~1000 characters would be roughly the target. Judging by the current main page, my guess is that we would get about as much space vertically as TFA, but possibly less horizontally, and TFA uses 1200 characters. —]]]— 10:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Fair point. Got it down to 1,000 characters exactly (excluding "more..."!) at ]. ]] 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notifications WFC. I think we should give it 48 hours for people to respond and if not, then either write the blurbs ourselves or select different starting lists. Once that's done, and once the featured sound proposal looks stable (in terms of support) then we'll move onto ] with our own proposal. ] (]) 12:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:I'm in total support of using the lists as we've described in this section. I think in the future though after the initial batch, we should adopt portions of WFC's proposal above, such as a rotating system through each type of list each week. But these are just minor semantics; the most important thing is that the FL proposal work, and it seems like this does more than the trick. Good work everyone, and I'm fully behind this. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
::This all looks promising so far. I'll delve into this further today. ] (]) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::: To give you somewhere to try things out I've created a page at ] where you can get an idea of how things might look. That page transcludes the page ] where you can place pictures, text, etc. using ordinary wiki-markup. I've copied the blurb for Bodley's Librarian there as a trial. Please don't assume that the sizes I've used are precise representations of how the layout will turn out when Adam actually does the coding. I expect he will follow the current mainpage coding by using nested tables to get the desired effect <s>(which I haven't – so my quick and dirty mock-up won't behave the same way when text overflows, for example)</s>. I'd encourage you to replace the contents of ] with other candidate lists to try out how they might look. Hope that helps --] (]) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: If others are going to look at it, I might as well mimic the MainPage as closely as I can. --] (]) 01:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(←)This is a very exciting proposal; well done to everybody who has got this moving so quickly! I appreciate the suggestion of using ] as one of the early lists; I shall write a blurb in the next 24 hours (probably in one of my many sandboxes) and supply a link. I'll also transclude it into RexxS's Demo page. <font face="Helvetica">]]</font> 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) '''Follow-up:''' I've put a sample blurb (~1,100 chars) straight into ]. It's not great; fresh eyes needed! <font face="Helvetica">]]</font> 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, yes, yes, yes! Ditto. This is so necessary and such a good proposal. If anyone wants a workup on a sports list (since there aren't any in the samples list), I'll volunteer. &mdash; ] • ] • 00:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::Having a couple of high-quality sports blurbs up our sleeves is the right way to go (possibly music as well). It certainly wouldn't be time wasted, as at some point in the future the lists would probably be in contention for the main page. But I don't think we should use them in the initial sample, unless we encounter opposition on the grounds that "while the examples are good, our endless sporting and music minutiae wouldn't reach anything like this standard". My view is that half of the battle will be convincing the uninitiated that while sport is well represented, FLC is far more diverse than that. —]]]— 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree with that– and not to block all of my featured list contributions for the foreseeable future, but I think we should make sure not to put up video game lists at least for a good amount of time until the general format for lists is approved. They tend not to go down too well on the main page... ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 03:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I'd be somewhat inclined not to show the ones everyone knows you have, simply to surprise people with how varied and broad you actually are. Or, if you do include them, put them second-to-last. (I think people tend to scrutinise the last item on the list a bit more, like the teachers who only read the first and last page of an essay. ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::(just my 2 cents) As the main writer of one of the above mentioned lists, I would personally love to see it on the main page. Most FLs that I come across now a-days are worthy of a main page appearance and I would support a motion to add them in.--] <sup>]</sup> 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, I wasn't very clear: I meant that the selected set of examples may as well leave out lists of types that FLs are accused of being nothing but. Obviously, I'm not saying well-written lists should be excluded from the main page. ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

*Where are we supposed to do blurbs if we are going to work them up for specific articles? &mdash; ] • ] • 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
**At the moment it seems to be individual user's subpages. I guess there will eventually be a dedicated area, but I don't think one should be set up yet, for the same reasons as my previous comment. If we set up a new area as a free-for-all at this stage, and most of the submissions are popular culture, it would be used as a stick to beat this proposal with. —]]]— 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
***OK. I'd appreciate comments if anyone has them: ] is my working space right now. &mdash; ] • ] • 02:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
**** I think your picture might be set to too small a size. It looks different when it's on a page next to a FP. ] - what do you think? --] (]) 02:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
*****The blurb and image themselves look great. —]]]— 03:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
******Thanks. I increased the picture to 175px. It's actually a surprisingly HQ image of a baseball award, which we are hard-pressed to find, so it didn't suffer from the increase. &mdash; ] • ] • 13:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
*****RexxS: Perhaps text wrapping would make the original image size seem somewhat more appropriate? —]]]— 03:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
****** I agree it probably would, but currently the Main Page template uses two cells of a layout table to hold the image and the text separately for the Featured Picture block, so text wrapping can't happen. View the ] in a narrow browser window and you'll see what I mean. I've merely copied the same technique to display what is my best guess at the likely layout. We probably need to decide whether we would like to have text wrapping for our 45% of the block before Adam starts coding, but beware of the effect in a narrow browser window if we decide to wrap the text and the FP folk decide to leave their part unwrapped. I've knocked up what you suggest, so have a look at how ] behaves as you make your browser window narrower. I suspect that those using 1280px wide screens may not like the effect. --] (]) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
*******Ahh, I'm with you now. Wasn't noticeable until you said because of the size of the current FP. Hopefully Adam will be able to shed some light. Potential technical necessity aside, I'd rather we weren't competing with FP on image size though. —]]]— 04:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

===Brief note===
Compared with Featured sounds, video, and pictures, with all the interesting formatting, Lists are easy. I just make it so you can turn off the formatting for the other stuff, then sit back and let you type in whatever you want. ;) For example, the code for setting up a list might look something like:
{|border=1
|
<nowiki>|type=List</nowiki><br />
<nowiki>|description='''Featured list for Main Page''' is a list that... we have to describe in its entirety, including all formatting. </nowiki>
|}
I suspect that's all you really need, to be honest; I mean, the box around it is going to be the same for all featured content types, so I just need to give you control over what goes in the box. That said, if you want me to include, say, an easy way to add a picture, please let me know.

By the way, optional proposal, but I was thinking that for the first week or so after it goes on the main page, we might want to up the number of sounds and lists, to celebrate, say 4 lists alternating with 4 sounds, before returning to the normal schedule. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:Other than we would ''never'', '''''ever''''' start a list intro with "... is a list ...", of course!!! A picture would be important. Most, if not all FLs have at least a lead image. And the "celebration" week sounds good too... ] (]) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::Would the same format as FA pictures suit (only right aligned, perhaps)? ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Yeah, it should work out fine. We'll probably have to see how it will look, but it should pretty much be the same format. My main question though is that for most featured articles, there is a bold title in the lead which the main page links to (i.e. '''Astronomy''' is the study...). Obviously, ] rejects this idea of using "This is a '''list of all of the Maryland birds'''", as has been confirmed through multiple FLCs. So how do we get users from looking at the list to the article? Do we put a title above it somehow and then put the lead below? ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::::That's for you to decide. I'll provide coding support, if needed. See, the hard part of the coding is all the stuff that has to be done anyway for the FS/FP proposal, so it'd be very hard for you to make any feature requests that wouldn't be trivial to code in comparison. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I understand. All we really need is something similar to what FA already has for use on Wednesdays; we can figure out the title problem when we come to it with some sort of Wikicode workaround. Thanks for the help with the coding, Adam. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
*Could do the linking like the FPs do, just pick a good set of words early on and link it. Most lists have some kind of decent phrase in the first couple sentences. ] <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
: And there's always the fallback of "(])" at the end of the piece as well. ] blurb uses that in addition to a link in the first sentence. Folks will have to decide if they are happy with that stylistically, of course. --] (]) 22:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

===Where are we?===
Hello everyone. Sorry I've been a bit out of the loop for the last day or so, but trying to catch up and ensure our approach is coherent and easy to follow by those outside the project. To that end, I've created a sandbox in my own user space (]) where I think it would be best to add all possible candidates for blurbs that we can take to ]. The six examples I gave above (along with WFC's) if possible should be transcluded/added to that sandbox, along, of course, with anyone else who wishes to put forward a candidate for us to show the rest of the community that we're not "just a bunch of stats".

Speaking with Adam Cuerden, it would seem most likely that we'll be looking to make the main proposal at the main page midway through next week, by which time I hope we'll have three directors in place, and at least half a dozen (more would be better!) examples of what we're capable of doing. So, if everyone can pull together and get these examples up and running by 22 February, then I think we stand a very, very good chance of a positive outcome! ] (]) 13:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:I'd actually go with KV's over mine, purely on the grounds that if we're going to use a sports list, we should go for the one with the broadest appeal. —]]]— 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

:I've even got carried away and done my own blurb there. Any comments gratefully received! ] (]) 13:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
::Is it okay for us mere mortals to edit there? If so, I'll get cracking on porting some of the <s>more</s> leads that lend themselves to blurbs more easily, and we can copy-edit them collectively. —]]]— 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes yes, my sandbox is an open house, bring a blurb, hors-d'oeuvres provided... As for one sports over another, let's just blurb-up on the sandbox and decide from there on. I see no harm in being overqualified for main page...! ] (]) 13:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to encourage everyone to comment on the current write-ups at ] page. The more we critique and comment, the better type of proposal we can put forward to the community. And at TRM's ], I've put up a ] as one of the candidates. I mean, what would a mainpage be like without video games? Great work on the blurbs so far, everyone. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

===Any more for any more... ===
I'm in the mindset to invite a few more blurbs. Also, I'd like to encourage any comments on what else could go wrong when we nominate this proposal at ]. On my ], WFCforLife has left a few ideas. Anything else would be great, and any comments in response to the stuff there too.

As for including a few more lists, I'd like to suggest these get added to our list of diversity at ]...
*] - ]
*] - ] & ]
*] - ]
*] - ]
*] - ]
*] - ] (seems egotistical, I know, but I think it really, really hits at the diversity thing...)

If we can add these to the ones already on the talkpage, and get decent blurbs in place, we have around four months of main page FLs already. If I'm going too far, let me know, but I think it's best to show our intent, and show we mean what we say. Let me know... ] (]) 18:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also had some suggestions:
*] - ]
*] - ]
*<s>] - ]</s>
*] - ]
*] - ]
—<font face="Cambria" size="3">]<sub>]/]</sub></font> 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:Love pretty much all of the above examples. I think ] is of particular note, being a dynamic list. —]]]— 10:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::Any chance you could ping these nominators WFC? Once again I'm being stretched a little at work... If not, no worries and I'll try to get round to it later. ] (]) 10:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Happy to draw up a blurb for the Westminster list. This is a great idea that I had no idea was progressing, and I'm very honoured that one of my articles has been highlighted so early in the process. ] ] 13:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Hello. I'm the author of ], listed above, and I fully support this idea. Those who write FLs are tasked with as much work and scrutiny as any FA writer. Unfortunately, though, I would like to remove Shooting thaler from the list of possible main page candidates. I'm very proud of the list, but the images still need to receive the ok from the OTRS team. For this reason, I would hate to see the images in the list distract critics and fans alike from the wonderful idea of featuring an FL on the main page. Let me know if there's anything else I might be able to do to help get this project off the ground, though. Good luck!-] (]) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I created an Userbox for those who support the proposal. Just add <nowiki>{{User:RHM22/FLbox}}</nowiki> to your userpage.-] (]) 14:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::Hello all. I am the author of the ] and agree that this is a fantastic idea! FLs have to meet strict criteria and are more than appropriate on the main page. Plus, I personally think they are overdue for inclusion as visitors can more quickly digest a FL than a FA in getting a complete impression of the topic at hand. I am more than happy to give it a shot and draw up a blurb for the Denver RTD list. ] (]) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I was the main author and co-nominator of ], a collaborative effort involving several other editors. I'd be happy to prepare a blurb for potential main-page consideration by Raul654 and I'll do that later today. ] (]) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I don't like some of the changes being made to ], nor do I understand them. Would it not be better to discuss them on the article's talk page? The revised layout does not look good, and at least one of the new titles is redundant. ] (]) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

=== General discussion ===
Not sure where to put this, but the proposal is popping all over my watchlist, so I'll put it here in a new section at the bottom. I don't support the inclusion of more marginal content on the mainpage (Featured sounds) and don't feel that the Featured Sounds process is up to snuff yet, while Featured pictures used to promote original research (don't know if that is still occurring), but since they are no worse than DYK, which routinely puts plagiarism on the main page, I haven't opposed that proposal. As long as they're stuck on the bottom of the mainpage, they're doing no more harm than DYK, which at least promotes the creation of new articles, albeit often plagiarized. WRT Featured Lists, they are generally higher quality than Sounds or Pictures, and the process has matured, but I suspect you all will have better luck with this proposal if you instead frame it as Featured Lists you will put forward to Raul654 (who has not been pinged in to this discussion, which I will do next) for his choice on the mainpage, similar to ], rather than proposing selection by another group of editors. I will oppose inclusion of Featured Lists if they circumvent entirely Raul's competent management of the mainpage. I do have a general concern that, in the environment of declining editorship, we're seeing more and more resources drained from Featured Articles, but that's not the fault of Lists. ] (]) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*I may be mistaken, but I believe our grouping of lists isn't our picking what we want on the main page, but instead precisely what you're describing. We're just trying to pick out the best and brightest examples to be judged on via a TFA-style process. ] <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
** Ah, in that case, I'm glad to hear it! If the proposal gains traction, I don't see any reason we couldn't adapt the already-existing page at ] for inclusion of Lists once a week. ] (]) 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
***And while my initial suggestion was that the FL directors would select lists for the first few weeks (i.e. the first four or so), we'd move to the TFA/R model eventually. What we ''don't'' want to do is over-complicate our initial chance at adding more featured and varied featured material to the main page by overcomplicating our newly-nurtured ideas. I seem to recall that even Raul654 selects several main page FAs as only five at a time are allowed at TFA/R? The directors would be doing nothing other than hand picking a few to start with, then once the concept has matured, we'll move onwards and upwards. I certainly didn't want to exclude Raul, although why he needs to be ''directly'' included, I'm not sure, I think the idea of the FL community helping to select their most accomplished works for the mainpage will work fine. And I really didn't even imagine the idea of draining resources from FA, that's certainly not on our agenda one iota. ] (]) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
**** As I mentioned above, I haven't concerned myself with either Featured pictures or Featured sounds being on the mainpage, as they are occuyping space at the bottom of the page and are no worse than DYK. Whether you would want to be part of Raul's mainpage scheduling would then be related to whether you are proposing creating 1) yet another new section of the main page, 2) sharing space at the bottom with Picture and Sounds, or 3) asking for a semi-regular slot in the FA space. My suggestion is that, if you want a weekly slot with FA, then you would want to bring Raul into the discussion, and that would be joined with the ] process. I would oppose FLs taking space from FA unless Raul is scheduling it, since his oversight has been exceptional there, there has never been a mistake, and it's a smoothly functioning process. It's a question of design-- where you are proposing to get your space, or with whom you will be sharing it. ] (]) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*****Ah, okay, well that's easy, we never proposed to take over an FA spot. Not for a moment. We always said we'd share the second FP space on Wednesdays only. ] (]) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
****** PS, one only has to look at the list of FL directors, past and present, to know that FL has already drained resources from FA. I'm not complaining-- just saying; we can't oblige people to work outside of their area of interest. If you're proposing to share the FP space, no need to involve the TFA slot or Raul then, but have you made the Pictures and Sounds people aware ? I would support that proposal; FLs are high quality, so if Pictures and Sounds are getting mainpage space, so should FLs. ] (]) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*******Yeah, I think there's a distinction between one area "draining resources" and another area losing resources for one reason or another. Until now, there's been little or no perceived benefit to being a FL community member, although we've fought hard for a year or so to be recognised as definitely part of Misplaced Pages's finest work, albeit slightly more niche than the FAs. The FS brigade (Adam Cuerden and Sven Manguard) are well aware of this proposal, but yes, I haven't informed the FP guys. I kind of figured that since they're getting potentially 12 FPs a week on the mainpage and we're asking for that to be 11 with 1 FL per week, it wasn't unreasonable, but I have overlooked that, so I'll remedy it as soon as possible. ] (]) 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
********Altering the mainpage involves a whole lotta design issues, so yes, you want to make sure everyone is on board early on. It's harder than it looks-- I watched all the tweaking when Raul ran all four on the anniversary, and was surprised at the amount of work involved! ] (]) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*********Already covered in the FL proposal, ] has agreed to incorporate the same re-coding issues for FLs as he's doing for FSs, so we've got that sorted too. I notified the FP folks, I didn't see any sign that the FS guys had done that though!! ] (]) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
**********In the FS proposal, it is said that the FS folks had the support of ]. If I am not mistaken, he is the "director" of FP.—<font face="Cambria" size="3">]<sub>]/]</sub></font> 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
***********That may be correct. I went to ] to look for a "director" but found nothing obvious. So I left a note at ] and ]. ] (]) 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
************FPC doesn't have a 'director' per se, but Howcheng runs POTD (the two processes are fairly independent). ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

== New director? ==
{{archivetop|result=] has community consensus to expand his role at FLC to director. Well done. ] (]) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)}}
Hello FLC folks. As many of you are aware, ] has done a sterling job in stepping in as an FLC delegate when both Dabomb87 and me are too busy to give FLC the attention it deserves. I'm here to propose that we ask Giants to take the role on formally, so that we have three directors. There are a couple of reasons for this, firstly it seems me and DB87 have less available time to dedicate to the process, and secondly (if we're really lucky) we may start to get lists featured on the main page. These things combined could use another pair of hands, and Giants is the ideal candidate. I've already if he'd be amenable to the idea, and he said he was, contingent on the community supporting this decision. So, community, please forthwith show your support (or otherwise) in favour of Giants2008 becoming a third Featured List director. Thanks. ] (]) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(post-note note: I'll close this down in 72 hours or so, there's no major drama here, I want to do this transparently... ] (]) 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

#"Per nominator"! ] (]) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Giants is ideal. Methinks workload will increase too if the main page issue works out. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' I thought he was already a director, lol.--<span style="color:#A4D3EE; background-color:#E0EEEE;font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'"> ] </span><span style="color:Black; background-color:#A4D3EE;font-family: 'Gigi'">]</span> 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per the excellent reasons about to be given by the next person offering support. ]] 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' best man for the job. If the current directors feel they need more hands for the work, they should of course be granted that. <font face="serif">] <sup>]</sup></font> 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
# '''Support''' ditto. ] 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' no reason to oppose—<font face="Cambria" size="3">]<sub>]/]</sub></font> 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Fine with me. The only issue this could bring is he might be less prone to vote so he can ultimately close the FLCs. Heh. ] <sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left: -16px; margin-right: -16px;">]</span></sup> 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#:I agree that on the face of it, that could be an issue, but I've closed a few FLCs that I've voted in, without too many complaints (!) so hopefully the same grace would be applied to Giants. As long as there's no clear COI, no problem in my opinion. ] (]) 21:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#:Directorship wouldn't have to mean a reduction in his level of commenting (short of a vote), and any decrease in his voting will I hope be matched by increased voting by TRM and Dabomb (if they wish) since there will now be two people available to close the discussion not one. ]] 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#::Yep. ] (]) 22:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Great editor, no reason to oppose. Looks like there's strong consensus in favor. ] <sup><span style="font-size: 6pt">(])</span></sup> 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#In my eyes, Giants has been as good as director for the past couple of years anyway. ] (]) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Strongest possible support''' &mdash; ] • ] • 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. I'm usually a fan of detailed rationales, but in this case the reasons are ]. —]]]— 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - He's more than well equipped for the job and I'd imagine there wouldn't be as much of a backlog as there is now. <font color="FF1493">]</font> (]) 08:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''Sounds great. ] (] · ]) 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''' – Guys don't think I'm mad or something, but last night, I was thinking how busy you guys (Rambling Man and Dabomb87) are these days. There are plenty of FLC and FLRC to do. Giants2008 is a very reliable person, and I support him becoming a delegate. – <font face="Arial" color="CornflowerBlue">]</font> (<font face="Arial" color="DodgerBlue">]</font>) 10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support''', the candidate seems like a more than appropriate/accomplished editor. There is plenty of work to go around and surely it will speed up the processes? &mdash; ] </sup></font>''']] 14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
#'''Support'''&mdash;fully confident he'd do an excellent job. <i>]]</i> 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

Congrats, Giants! --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Post-discussion support'''. I really need to keep a closer eye on FLC. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== FL on main-page proposal now up for discussion at ] ==


I'm looking at ] as a possible FLC. It's not in great shape right now (mostly unsourced or primary sourced, the descriptions need to be rewritten, info like first appearance could be added, etc), but I wanted to ask specifically about what type of sources are appropriate for a list like this. I'm looking at things like and . I ask because I feel uncomfortable using these sources, but at the same time they seem to be the only sources that explicitly provide such lists of their own. I asked ] a while back, but I need to know how this applies to lists and inclusion criteria. ] (]) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Just to let the project know there will hopefully be active discussion ] about lists on the main-page. ] (]) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:14, 27 December 2024

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.
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
  • 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
  • FLRCs of special note
    • None
Shortcut

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23

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

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

Maximum length for an FL?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
There are 1,218 entries at List of municipalities in Quebec. Hwy43 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
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)

Source reviewers needed

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)

Misplaced Pages talk:Featured lists#Proposal to Refine WP:FLCR #6

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

Query regarding geo-fenced reference urls

The Election Commission of India has an archive of past results of elections, but it is geo-fenced to only be accessible within India (example url). I've had a discussion with a reviewer on one of my FLCs regarding this. I've currently used "|url-access=limited" to indicate this geo fencing, but this isn't ideal as it is meant for to show "free access is subject to limited trial and a subscription is normally required", per Template:Citation#Subscription or registration required. The reviewer suggests that I remove this param and use "|url-status=dead" so that the archive url is shown first. This doesn't seem right to me as the url is live. Does anyone have a better option? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts are that having the archived link come first provides accessibility to the most amount of people and makes verification easier. More context on this discussion can be found here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
This is really more of a "how should the citation template handle this case" question, so I've cross-posted it to Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 96#Query regarding geo-fenced reference urls. --PresN 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum

Hi all, for a long, long time FLC has had an unwritten rule for how many items a list needed to have to meet the guidelines for a stand-alone list and therefore be eligible for FL: 10 items. In the past year, however, we've had more and more lists that were almost at ten items, asking for (and receiving) exceptions. These exceptions have been just based on how the delegates felt about it/how much surrounding text there was/whether it was part of a long-running series, though, which is not a fair standard, and has led to shorter and shorter lists, as low as 4 or 5 items, asking for exceptions.

We've been discussing internally how to make a more objective standard, and have decided on lowering the unwritten standard to an explicit written standard: 8 items. These items do not have to be in a single table, but we do not feel that any shorter can really qualify as an FL.

Note if this rule would affect a potential Topic that that WP:FTCRITERIA@3.c. allows for short lists to be included. We welcome discussion on this rule update, which goes into affect immediately. --PresN 15:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose a hard rule. Especially when considering sets of related articles, existing FLs like List of counties in Hawaii and List of counties in Rhode Island (though these older ones are lacking in prose) are still fine to promote – their having fewer items than similar lists doesn't make them worse or unable to be featured. 3(c)'s parts on not being a content fork and "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" should be adequate. Many short lists should be merged, but many others I would not, such as these county lists. List of administrative divisions by country has other examples of these. Reywas92 20:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
How do you propose we consider what to treat as an exception @Reywas92? My concern is that there would be creep without a hard rule, and the length of these lists is becoming more of an issue that we run into this past year from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I do see that it's not always clear, but to me it comes down to whether it should be merged to another page, which unfortunately also depends on how many columns or how much descriptive prose there is and what the parent article is like. I've made this recommendation about short lists before myself, an sometimes even longer lists can be merged! I just don't like saying that some pages don't qualify for GA/FA/FL at all so folks might not want to put in effort to improve them even if beneficial. I see this stems from Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates#List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan. Tone has done amazing work on WHS lists, though I also think the regional lists can be good and we don't necessarily need individual articles for every country so I agree with the sentiment there. Maybe 5 would be better. Reywas92 20:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
@Reywas92: This has actually been a general guideline that was followed for a while now, with this just being codification of it. There was actually a few lists recently that this applied to, including another active nomination, so it's not that list in particular for what it's worth. The problem, for me at least, comes down to how we can apply a basic minimum length and what kind of clear and straight forward rules we can create for any type of exceptions that may exist to said rules, if any. There will always be folks who believe their list should be an exception, and it's better if it's codified in a way that doesn't come down to a judgement call on our behalf. I do get where you're coming from, but the length of some lists nominated is something that I've received some complaints about in the past, which is part of why we've discussed codifying it. I don't think we're necessarily stuck on this number, we just need to have some type of criteria that we can apply without it being as much of a judgement call. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
If we set a hard rule, we could imply that any list that hits that benchmark is automatically suitable as a stand-alone list (i.e., "my list meets the FLC criteria by having 10 items, so it must be a good stand-alone list"). I'm concerned that passing a "minimum item count" threshold will be seen as an implicit endorsement that the list meets WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE when the actual guidelines are much more nuanced. I also don't think there is a good way to define a set cutoff for all types of lists. As recent discussions have shown, season articles can list well more than 5/8/10 episodes and still be better suited at GA/FA, and on the flip side as noted by Reywas92, there are short lists that are reasonable stand-alone lists.
The whole point of an FLC nomination is to have a discussion about any issues – if list length is a issue, the discussion should be able to handle it. (See this as an example.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that setting a requirement for becoming a featured list equates to designating what is good enough to be a stand-alone list. I also believe the number of entries in a list is entirely irrelevant to whether a subject meets WP:NLIST. For example, we saw quite a few broadcaster lists deleted this year that had a lot of entries and yet still failed NLIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree; I just think it's easy for less familiar editors to conflate guidelines for FLC (which the size limit would be) with guidelines for stand-alone lists (which the size limit would not be). I guess if there is a hard rule, which I still think isn't ideal for the second reason I noted, it should be clear this is only the former and not a NLIST / STANDALONE guideline. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment I also find a hard rule challenging, but wouldn't necessarily be opposed. That said, maybe we carve out an exception for small lists when the topic is widely covered as a specifically named topic. As an example, 'List of counties by state' is a clear topic that is widely covered as such, regardless of size. Basically, does the list as titled and scoped meet (maybe a stringent reading of) WP:GNG? Is it part of a larger topic that makes sense to be broken out as such, even if that means some entries may be short.
Noting RunningTiger123's example of Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award/archive1, that discussion did lead me to create List of Green Bay Packers award winners and bring to FLC (anyone feel like doing a source review for me?). That said, this example isn't really applicable to the 'List of counties by state' or 'List of World Heritage Sites in country' topics. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  1. The Featured List process does not have any special sway with interpretations of NLIST or STANDALONE. "It's long enough for FLC" has never been a winning argument for those discussions, and making our rule a hard 8 instead of a soft 10 does not change that. The wording of the rule is "it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items", not "by including at minimum eight items".
  2. We are open to finding a way to make clear guidelines that would allow things like List of counties in Hawaii or List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan, but have been unable to find a way that wouldn't apply to, well, any list at all. Almost any list can be thought of as being part of a (theoretical) series - List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award is part of a "list of (NFL team) players to win an MVP award" series. If anyone can come up with something, we can adjust it. --PresN 21:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for possible FLC at List of Iron Man enemies

I'm looking at List of Iron Man enemies as a possible FLC. It's not in great shape right now (mostly unsourced or primary sourced, the descriptions need to be rewritten, info like first appearance could be added, etc), but I wanted to ask specifically about what type of sources are appropriate for a list like this. I'm looking at things like Comic Book Resources and Comics and Collectibles Near Me. I ask because I feel uncomfortable using these sources, but at the same time they seem to be the only sources that explicitly provide such lists of their own. I asked a similar question at FAC a while back, but I need to know how this applies to lists and inclusion criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)