Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3

message: I think we need to make it clear in the header on WP:FLC that lists should not be renominated right after a fail.  Even if objections have been fixed after the fail, I think we should have a mandatory time limit between noms for the sake of the community so it doesnt have to keep on reviewing the same list.  Maybe a week or something like that.  And I also think we should make it clear that noms can be speedy closed if there has not been significant changes from the last failed nomination.  Im kind of getting tired of this.  Any thoughts?Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends... if an editor has made some major chnages in ashort space of time following a rejection, then I see no reason why alist couldn't be re-nomianted in short space of time. I think imposing a formal time limit would act as hinderance. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If someone does immediately renominate a page without working on it, then we can speedy close it anyway. -- Scorpion0422 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making something clear 

message: Can we change so that FLCs could get closed without four supports after ten days yet with clear consensus? That might need appointer an FLC director like at FAC and Raul654... just throwing this idea out. I personally dislike the 4-support rule. Maxim(talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree there.  If we don't have a minimum of support, we could end up with stuff like I've seen happen recently in GAs and FAs where they are passing with only one or two support yet the article very obviously does not meet the criteria. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a firm supporter of the four support rule. It ensures that an FLC is there long enough so that enough people see it. Around here, if an candidate has more than 2 votes after 10 days then it is lucky. -- Scorpion0422 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that we should get rid of the 4 support rule. At least 3 users have to review one list before it gets closed, ideally one of them should be an expert in the field, another familiar with all of the Wikipedia rules, and the other just an outsider(a non-expert in the field).--Crzycheetah 09:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with the proposal, agree with the comments made so far.  It would be nice to be able to speed things up here at FLC, but I'd say four-supports is a good amount.  Besides, it's really only 3, since the nomination itself counts as one.  Seems pretty reasonable to me. Drewcifer (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, keep the four supports. As scorpion says, it is a lucky FLC that has 2 comments after 10 days (unless it has project backing). I think 4 is a good threshold to make sure that it gets adequately reviewed. Woody (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the 4-support rule should be kept, not least because it helps ensure enough people look at it. I can recall very few occasions were a list failed due to lack of comments. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Warning User:Maxim just passed his own nomination by disregarding the 4-support rule.--Crzycheetah 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Good catch. That's completely uncalled for, Maxim. --Golbez (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That seems like a major conflict of interest.  People shouldn't be able to pass their own nominations, not even admins. For those wondering, the FL in question is Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lester Patrick Trophy, and the promotion attempt has been reverted. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have closed my own nominations in the past (back in the day when I was the only one actively closing them), however I never closed them if they had opposition. -- Scorpion0422 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I was only following Scorpion's example. And there's no difference if I'm an admin or not. ;-) Maxim(talk) 21:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All good but as a rule of thumb, never close your own noms.  Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't think there's anything too controversial about closing your nom provided it's unanimous, like in that case. It was done before at FLC and it wasn't a big deal, but if most prefer that not happen, so be it. Maxim(talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think that not closing your own noms avoids the inevitable (perceived) conflict of interest.  I don't see the rush in these things.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking as one who has promoted his own FLC's in the past, I feel there is no reason to ban it, so long as the nominator thinks carefully before they do it. If it's clear and unaminous, then there's no problem, but any hint of dispute should be left for someone else to judge. As has been pointed out, there's no rush. Tompw (talk) (review) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's enough users out there who know how to close these things, you shouldnt close your own noms.  I brought this up early when this happened, and it was sorta dismissed.  I still stand by my belief that you shouldnt close your own.  I mean if it is that urgent that you need it closed now, then come and bug me, or some other regular contributor here and if it should be closed then it will be closed. – Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of the 4-support req? 

message: A recent discussion on Depeche Mode discography prompted this. Please check the Style guide on Wikipedia:
In American English, both US and, decreasingly, U.S. are common abbreviations for United States; US is yet more common in other varieties. When referring to the country in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned along with one or more other countries in the same sentence, US or U.S. can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the US). When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. USA and U.S.A. are not used unless quoted or part of a proper name (Team USA).
Thanks for your attention, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  I've been wondering about that for sometime now... Drewcifer (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  US v. U.S. 

message: There is a weekly Signpost column that has some little story about the FA process called the Dispatch. This has since been expanded to include all parts of the featured process and anyone who is interested in contributing stories, ideas, etc. can take a look at the page here. -- Scorpion0422 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop]] 

message: List_of_acquisitions_by_Apple_Inc.
*Is it normal to follow the heading by exactly the same words at the opening? It's a really gripping start (frankly, I'd be irritated as a visitor).
::Heading: List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.
::First line: "This is a list of acquisitions by Apple Inc.".
**Yes, it is. What change would you suggest? --Golbez (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*Second sentence: "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." What does "respective company" mean here? I'm totally confused.
*"listed in US$ because"—Shouldn't it be spelt out properly? The "US" is almost unnecessary (see MOS), and certainly should not be repeated, which it is.
*"Apple has been a computer hardware company from its founding to the early 2000s,.."—Um, when did it stop?
**When it became a media company with iTunes; that's what caused the final lawsuit with Apple Corps, actually. --Golbez (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*"and hired other companies to build parts computer parts such as central processing units, computer memory, and hard disk drives"—parts computer parts. Good one. Is computer memory a computer part?
**Actually computer memory most definitely is a computer part, as is a hard disk, a graphics card, a sound card etc.  The first "parts", however, can go, and already has.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*None of the three "thens" is necessary.
*"NeXT was a computer hardware company founded by Steve Jobs after being removed from Apple as chairman; he is also the founder of Apple"—Was the computer hardware company removed? Better "after his removal from". The last clause dangles and would be better properly integrated into the first mention of Jobs.
*"as being acquired as"—clumsy rep.
*"The majority" is much vaguer than the info provided in the "country" column—almost misleading—so why bother stating it?
*13? I count 14 in the list.
**Fixed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*Consideration might have been given to removing the "country" column (just state the two of the ?13 that aren't in the US) and abbreviating the host of zeros; that way, the 2008 inflation-adjusted equivalent could have been accommodated.
*The data at the bottom, starting "Annual revenue" (small r, please—see MOS): shouldn't a year be provided for each?
*The first two refs I sampled: 8 looks like a blogsite (convince me that it's authoritative); 14, the authors are not stated in list.
If this is what is being promoted, I'm appalled. Tony (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:Ummm...that list has not been promoted, it is still in the candidacy phase, so why not post those comments to its FAC as an oppose? AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::Ummm ... from my watchlist: "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎; 01:43 . . (-219) . . Scorpion0422 (Talk | contribs) (Promoted List of acquisitions by Apple Inc., failed Green Wing (series 2))" Tony (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::I'm guessing (hoping) that was a mistype, since the list does not have the minimum number of supports at all, and, as you pointed out, is not FL ready at all. If it is promoted, I'd want to se it sent to review for delisting.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*::PS Here's the diff. My, it seems to be a chaotic system. Tony (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*:::It is not chaotic Tony, it is the same system as FAC. It was closed with the requisite 3 supports + nom. All of your commenst would have been much more useful on the nompage. As it is, you could ask Scorpion to reverse it before Gimme gets to it. Woody (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*::::I thought it was 4 + nom?  I think it needs to be reversed, though. (We do need to add something like what was recently added to FAC, with some kind of "closing" comments to indicate its closed, because I couldn't tell and left an oppose :P )AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Okay Tony1, here is what you can do: Start commenting in all of these "terrible lists" before they are promoted so that all of your concerns are met. Frankly, your constant complaining about the FL process is becoming both insulting and irritating. Yes, we know you don't think FLs are as good as FAs, but why don't you start helping to improve the lists rather than making examples here? 
And as for our "chaotic" system, we follow the exact same promotion proceedures that they do at WP:FAC. Against my better judgement, I have reversed the promotion, so I suggest working with Gary King and trying to help him improve it. -- Scorpion0422 09:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:Now look here, I was pestered above—rather unpleasantly—to provide an example of poor standards in FLCs, and this was the first one that came up. I've done what you asked. Don't complain, and don't abuse me ("constant bitching"); you've got a nerve. And I'm not here to take orders from the likes of you, thanks very much. You might look inwards, both at yourself and at this process, rather that issuing personal attacks; take note of WP:NPA. Tony (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::Well you see, this is the FLC process, so next time leave comments in the FLC. How am I trying to order you around? I merely suggested that you start commenting in the places you are supposed to, rather than complaining here after they get promoted. As well, perhaps you should start practising what you preach, because you have been less than civil here with your comments about our "chaotic system". -- Scorpion0422 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::I see that someone has pointed out on my talk page, below your hysterical post, that it's impossible to review an article that has already been promoted, and already promoted it was. Tony (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::Oh, and is this a new rule you've just come up with about requiring permission to comment on newly promoted lists? Tony (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::::Did I say that? -- Scorpion0422 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
I saw this link on Tony's talk page; now why are some of our best editors in a jam with each other? :-)  Just to clarify something:   ... it is the same system as FAC. It was closed with the requisite 3 supports + nom. It was my understanding (unless this has changed) that there is a fundamental difference between FAC and FLC, in that FLC has no director/delegate position to determine consensus, rather that lists are automatically promoted based on vote count and no outstanding opposes. If I'm wrong about how FLC works, pls disregard, but there is no automatic number that will get any article promoted or archived at FAC.  I suggest this is a fundamental flaw at FLC, that allows for vote stacking, and that y'all should appoint a director, as Raul once suggested.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:Sandy, I agree.  And while it may upset us all, there's nothing invalid in Tony's points.  He also categorically states that he doesn't "usually copyedit articles".  It often leads to upset at FAC where Tony will appear to drop a bomb on a FAC with his eagle eyes.  We mustn't, however, become petulant and cry foul.  Similarly, Tony must acknowledge that WP:FAC is woefully short of copyeditors, expectations of volunteers appearing to copyedit at FLC are even lower which is a shame.  The inevitable conclusion to that is either standards will be inevitably lower or lists will take longer (perhaps a lot longer) than FACs to meet Tony's (and FAC's) expected standards.   That's my take on it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::I don't mind copyediting FLs, although I'd rather point out the issues at FLC, and let the nominators learn. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•  @ 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::Which part do you agree: that FLC needs a director?  If that's the case, let's put that in motion.  There are several obvious choices, but this needs to garner broad community consensus across several pages.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::I agree with pretty much all you said Sandy, but yes, no reason why FLC shouldn't formalise itself a little more than it currently appears and appoint a director (or two).  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::::A director would be a good idea. It would help a great deal to ensure quality passes, even if there are a number of supports. It's something I've been silently thinking for a while. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•  @ 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::::I think most of the issues at List of acquisitions by Apple Inc. have been addressed. Also, I disagree with Rambling Man that it might take longer to meet high copyediting standards here than it would at FAC. FLC has less prose and therefore should not be as difficult to copyedit :) Gary King (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::::Fair there's less prose but since FAC doesn't have enough copyeditors for their demand, and you, Gary, generate an FLC per day (not necessarily a bad thing!), I think we'll struggle to meet Tony's exacting standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)  12:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::::::Hey...! I resent that :| I think I've been fairly responsive in all of my FLCs to date, even better than some of my critics :p Plus, a rising tide lifts all boats. Tony has also put me through the paces a few times over at FAC, and it looks like he's passed one of my nominations there just a few hours ago, so I'll take that as a good sign that I'm learning a thing or two about copyediting :) Gary King (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
*My standards are being framed as something stratospheric, whereas in reality they're just normal standards of professional writing in English. "Professional standards of writing and formatting" are explicit requirements at FAC, but I really don't see how WP can survive as an authority on the Internet if anything less applies to all of its featured content. It's hard to achieve, and as you'll see from my user page, I like people to correct my prose where it can be improved. But let's face it, there's a lot less prose to check and copy-edit in FLCs than FACs. FAC reviewers have been promoting a culture of collaboration with copy-editors by nominators (better before nomination, but unfortunately all too often during), which has markedly improved standards on that front. Other experts in citations/sourcing have weighed in over the past year to enforce the two relevant criteria, which has transformed the standards.
*We need to get a start on this process. I am an outsider and have no time to participate on a regular basis at FLC, but I'm willing to support the process by assisting in the fixing up of the criteria (that is a high priority) and in the establishment of a directorate. I agree with Rambling Man that two experienced reviewers would be a good start in these positions. Is the next step to advertise this move at VP (policy)? I can frame a short text for the consideration of regular participants here. Tony (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::I'm all for anything that will get the ball rolling. 'Tis better to hold discussions than to have none at all! Gary King (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:So, who's it gonna be ?  I've never followed this page, so I may miss someone, but I know that Woody, Scorpion, The Rambling Man and Colin are the names I've most often encountered as being heavily involved and very knowledgeable on the standards.  If this goes to Village Pump, I'd support any of them.  (I don't know who else may be heavily involved.)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::I'm just borrowing a computer here. Viruses have eaten mine away, but I'm getting it back tomorrow which is why I haven't commented yet. I think The Rambling Man, Scorpion and CrzyCheetah would make good directors. I haven't seen much of Woody's and Colin's work, here or elsewhere on Wikipedia so I can't say for those. I'd also like to throw my name into the mix if no-one objects. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•  @ 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::Matthew I object :P jkjk, I would support Matthew, Scorpion or CrzyCheetah (I would also support The Rambling Man as long as he doesn't have too much else on his plate). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
Hold the phone a sec.  I've been avoiding jumping into this whole debate so far, but then I notice that buried under all of the above the topic has changed from low standards to problems with the FL criteria back to low standards and now to an FL Director?  That last bit seems like something that should be decided on elsewhere.  And, by elsewhere I just mean at least in it's own subheading or something, to facilitate a decent discussion/consensus about the whole thing.  I've been trying to follow this whole thing, but that one kind of crept up on me! Drewcifer (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:People are just listing potential nominees. I think the general consensus is that we still plan on holding a more official discussion on that before making any major decisions. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::Ok, maybe I just panicked there!  I guess my point was that if we really wanted to improve the FLC process (which am 100% behind), we need to be a little bit more organized about it.  There's alot of good ideas so far (and kudos to Tony for fighting the good fight), and I wouldn't want those ideas go to waste. Drewcifer (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
:::Drewcifer, problems with the FL criteria are directly responsible for the low standards, apart, of course, from the lack of reviewers. I don't think these two are too irrelevant to be discussed in the same thread. Waltham, The Duke of 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
::::It's not a matter of relevancy, it's a matter of staying on-topic and actually getting stuff accomplished.  If everything from A-Z is discussed in the same thread, nothing will get fully fleshed out because the discussion will be a moving target. Drewcifer (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly promoted list—is this the typical standard?