Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 2

message: I've been researching the closing status of the FLs to gauge the level of support/oppose that FL noms get. 
It is very rare for an FL to be promoted with any outstanding oppose. This is quite different to FA. However, the level of participation here is so low that many lists only just get enough support to pass the threshold. Generally, if an oppose is lodged, the list will also fail to attract much support. Recent failures are 3:2, 8:4, 1:2, 0:1, 3:2, 0:1, 1:0, 4:1, 3:0, 2:0, 1:4, 0:2. This year, I can find only three noms that got promoted while they had an outstanding oppose:
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition Promoted by User:Juhachi (5:1). The opposition was on an issue of style that did not have consensus among other reviewers. Juhachi makes it clear that the oppose was rejected both technically and by consensus.
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2003 NBA Draft Promoted by User:Wizardman (5:1 after 20 days). There was an outstanding Object regarding references being inadequate. That is a serious object. There are no closing comments. The issue should have been resolved prior to promotion IMO.
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Danish football champions Promoted by User:Wizardman (summary says 4:1 after 32 days, but actually 5:1 since the nominator counts. However, one support came from the main contributor, which weakens it.). Object was on an issue of style (abbreviations) that two editors (Circeus, Tompw) felt needed to be addressed. None of the other supporters mentioned the issue. This was a close call, especially since the level of support was only just on the threshold. There were no closing comments.
Now, I don't think those promotions were so wrong that they need reviewed. Closing comments would have helped. Why after 20/32 days was the outstanding oppose not dealt with and yet was disregarded? There have been suggestions in the past that we somehow highlight noms that have gone into extra time. Perhaps we should reconsider this, along with a statement to say why this nom needs more comments. For example:
* Will fail due to lack of support.
* Objection disputed by nominator. (i.e. other reviewers are required in order to gauge consensus as to whether it is a valid objection).
* Objecting being worked on; please keep watching.
I've been reading m:Polls are evil and think is relevant both to these summary tables and our thoughts on handling FLC in general. Lets take each of the subheadings:
;Polling discourages consensus:Sometimes reviewers raise objections that they later retract or agree could have been dealt with in a different way from how they suggested. This is why it is so important to get other reviewers on an nom that has an object. Sadly, that often doesn't happen. Lack of interaction between reviewers' comments weakens the process. We end up with a list of "Support. Brilliant" along side an object. Does the object have consensus?
;Polling encourages false dichotomy:Support and oppose are not the only two options. Often a reviewer will see a list that is nearly-there but requires just a few more changes. If small, this could be handled by a conditional support. Often, at an early stage in the nomination, reviewers might just comment, making it clear what needs to be done to get their support. This can be seen as less confrontational than an up-front oppose.
;Polling encourages groupthink:This is probably the worst aspect of these summary tables. It is really hard not to be influenced by the current "voting" state. This can influence not only your own recommendation but also your decision to abstain from a nomination. That could be quite unfair if you read the nom and (a) the support is all fan-based or (b) the objects are unfair.
;Polling isn't fair, either:Perhaps we've got into the habit of thinking you need 4 support and 0 oppose? The concern that fans can bring about an undeserved promotion is present at FA and FL. I think significant contributors should abstain from supporting (though they may comment or even oppose). I'd be uncomfortable promoting a 4-sup list where two of those were main contributors.
;Polls are misleading and encourage confusion:I've seen lists that have received lots of good advice on FLC only to have the nominator go off in a huff because they failed. Worse, if it appears they "won the vote". Sometimes, FLC is a place where editors can learn, improve and gauge the consensus on-wiki for certain guidelines/styles. This is one reason I object to the WP:SOFIXIT attitude of some nominators at FLC; as if they want us to wave a magic wand over their list.
OK, this is in danger of becoming an essay. I've decided that I'm opposed to these summary tables. I certainly don't want the closing editors to use them (they could very well be out-of-step anyway). We do need to find ways to encourage more reviewers, more discussion between reviewers, and to deal with out-of-time nominations. I don't think this is the solution. Having said that, I support Geraldk's actions: we do have to try new things to see if they work/like them. Colin°Talk 17:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colin's thoughts

message: I just opened a peer review for List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A here. I want to use the feedback gained from that and the subsequent FLC to improve all the other LGB people lists to the same standard, so I would be very much appreciative if some of the regulars here who know what an FLC should look like would comment. Thanks. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some feedback wanted at peer review 

message: Could someone add a new sentence to step #4 in the Nomination procedure? When one (who's trying to resubmit) follows step #5, he/she doesn't change the links of the first nomination. The problem is that the Failed log shows the latest nomination (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations) which may have been promoted already and not the one that was failed (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1). Step #4 needs to be updated and it needs to state to follow "what links here" and add "/archive1" where necesary. --Crzycheetah 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination procedure 

message: Was thinking that, when time extensions are given due to lack of support, we should define a definite process. Specifically, I think the last bit under the Supporting and Objecting header should read: "In these cases the nominated list will receive additional time to attract support. This additional time will not exceed ten days." I know it will lengthen things to have a list on the page for twenty days, but I think we've been failing an unacceptable number of lists due to lack of support rather than outright objection. Thought? Geraldk 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also added a message box to direct reviewers to nominations in need. Thought for that are welcome as well. Geraldk 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing procedure 

message: The List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A FLC's ten days are almost up. May I, the nominator, promote, or would someone else kindly mind doing so? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the ten days aren't up until about 23:00 tomorrow. The discussion should be kept open until then. Geraldk 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good at writing, suck at counting. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to close an FLC? 

message: Because the focus of it is our very definition of "list", there is a strong need for more opinions at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea/archive2.Right now it's basically me vs. the article's staunchly opposed editors, and it's getting tedious something that has nothing to do with the rest on FLC... Circeus 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More opinions BADLY needed at WP:FLRC 

message: I noticed that in discography articles (or at least the ones nominated at FLC), album and single images are removed from the page. Could someone explain me the reason? Does putting these kind of images qualifies as a major copyright violation? Aren't they considered as fair use regarding that the author of these pictures is easily identifiable and their use is for encyclopedic value (again, i know very little about these issues). I appreciate if someone would clarify. Thank you. CG 09:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair-use image have been considered inappropriate for lists for several months now, and it's in the end just far too much work to argue with the Fair Use Warriors over this. See also the massive debate over screenshots in episode lists (though I'm serious considering that reintroduction is possible for lists where individual articles don't exists). Circeus 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in discography articles 

message: List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, a featured list, has become very long, and as such can be difficult to load and edit. In my opinion, a split of some sort is in order; given that the most complete (and therefore longest) section is #Athletics due to excellent sports records, a split to List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes sounds reasonable. If I were to perform such a split, how would I manage the corresponding lists' "featured" status? I was thinking that the old list (of GT alumni) would go through Featured List Review and the new (athletes) list would go through FLC. Any thoughts? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I don't see why the "old list" would need to go through Featured List Removal, as there aren't really any problems with it- but I figure a Peer Review wouldn't hurt. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting a featured list 

message: I've been monitoring this list/article for a couple of weeks now. Is there a reason it's not being either promoted, failed or commented? I want to get this article to FL, but if I don't get any feedback, I can't really do that. Can I get some more comments, support/opposition (hopefully not) and some reasoning behind these votes?
Thanks. --lincalinca 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting for [[List of Crowded House awards]] 

message: The FLC for the above article has been sitting at the bottom of the list with five support votes and no oppose votes for nearly a day now. Can anyone close it, seeing as it has been on this page for fifteen days, and all concerns have been addressed? Perhaps setting a committee of people to determine consensus on FLCs and to close them would be a beneficial thing for this page, and help in clearing potential backlogs. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .  My first closure, incidentally - I hope I've done everything correctly, but please will someone tell me if I didn't, or if I don't have the status required to close.  BencherliteTalk 09:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I hadn't closed it is because there was still an active discussion going on. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my apologies if I acted inappropriately, but that's not how it appeared (or appears) to me.  The last three comments from editors other than the nominator, spread over five days, were all supports; there was no further comment by Golbez in reply to the nominator's reply to his comment; and nobody else thereafter picked up Golbez's issue as a concern.  I saw no outstanding issues and nothing to hinder promotion, given that there were 4 non-nominator supports and no opposes. Or am I missing something? BencherliteTalk 15:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's okay, I last did my promotion rounds 4 days ago and I haven't had time to do any promotions since, so that's why I missed it. -- Scorpion0422 16:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh good.  I only closed it because (a) the nominator asked for someone to close it and (b) it looked a simple enough promotion decision for my first close!  BencherliteTalk 16:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the closure. Just remember to change the status of the article to FA-class on any relevant WikiProject tags that are on the talk page. Again, thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't on the checklist of things to do, so I didn't (and nor did the person who closed a FLC I nominated a while ago), but it's a good idea, I agree. BencherliteTalk 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2)]] 

message: Hi, please take a look at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Harry_Potter_in_translation and add your two cents: should the list in question be split away from the article or left as is? --woggly 09:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review before nomination 

message: Just to note that The Breeders discography has had four supports over ten days. The FLC is here. CloudNine 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Breeders discography]] 

message: Just placing this out there - List of Fate/stay night episodes has been sitting for two additional days with four supports. See here. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Promoted. Toohool 19:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Fate/stay night episodes]] 

message: We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September).  When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month.  I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page.  Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008.  For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page.  Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page.  The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries.  However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge.  See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FL on the Main Page proposal 

message: Is it okay to go to editors talk pages and ask them to comment, support or oppose nominations for FLs and FA if they have edited the page being nominated? -- Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CANVAS. You have to keep any notice neutral so you certainly mustn't ask people to support/oppose anything. On FAC, editors who have "been a significant contributor to the article" are expected to declare this if they support. FLC is a bit less formal but IMO, it is bad form to support something you were significantly involved in creating. The nominator is the obvious exception to this and would naturally be expected to support their own work. If other involved-editors wish to Comment, that's fine. You may find such editors have the article in their watchlists and will spot the FLC notice going up on the talk page. Colin°Talk 22:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking for comments on FLC and FAC 

message: I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates#Other "content navigation" pages. Please comment over there. Colin°Talk 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do "Content navigation" listings belong here? 

message: The following comments were made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics‎ after it was closed. I'ved moved them here since the discussion on that page has closed. Colin°Talk 23:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked for a decision to be made from someone other than a participant in the discussion. It seems inappropriate for someone who voted in the discussion to close it. Five supporters vs. two opposers appears to be a pretty clear consensus of support. Since a participant in the discussion closed the discussion, on the minority side to boot, it appears that conflict of interest has entered into it. The Transhumanist 22:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you would have had to wait over a week otherwise. It's not really a conflict of interest. You rarely see FA or FLCs pass when more than one opposer doesn't feel that their concerns have been addressed. I've seen some that were 8-1 in favour that failed. -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics‎  -- closure 

message: You may have seen either the original list of the day proposal or the revised version.  A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP.  Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTD proposal 

message: I have gotten list class added to the quality log.  I am trying to get FL class added here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FL class 

message: I've recently read a few comments from users that give me the impression that they are treating this place more as a peer review than anything. Should it be noted somewhere on the page that one should not nominate a list solely for feedback, or is it necessary? -- Scorpion0422 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a degree of overlap to an extent and that is one of the problems with the current setup. I think some people (myself included) leave comments like: Any comments/improvements would be welcome, simply to show that we are open-minded and not averse to constructive criticism. We do have the You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a list by listing it at Peer review. in the instructions, we could rephrase it to some more forceful language but would anyone take any notice? Woodym555 16:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people, however, do treat an attempt to acquire featured status, whether it is at WP:FAC, WP:FLC, or other places, as more effective than a peer review simply because more people are present at the aforementioned pages than at WP:PR. Furthermore, the prospect of being able to resolve all the problems means an article or list of featured status, which is an enticing goal. If nominations aren't up to par, then they fail; if they are, they pass. I think it's fine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to use any names, but I recently saw a conversation where two users agreed that a list would never pass an FLC, but one suggested submitting it anyway just for the review. That seems kind of like abusing the process, because we have a hard enough time getting 3 or 4 votes in FLCs as it is without users who know their lists won't pass clogging up the process with nominations of subpar lists. -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should introduce a speedy close system? If an FLC has 3 or 4 oppose votes within 5 days, then it can be speedily closed, that way the obvious fail noms will be off of the page quicker. -- Scorpion0422  —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree but only with 3 or 4 aggregate votes. I would worry that some people oppose for different problems. Some would oppose if a wikilink was out of place instead of Commenting. It could be open to abuse that way. Woodym555 20:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we wouldn't have to make the specifics of the policy public, we could just say that "articles with significant opposition may be closed early" or something like that. I think Raul has some kind of speedy closure policy for FAs, but it's difficult to tell what his limit is because he usually only closes articles once a week. While we're on the topic of speedy closures, I don't think we should have a speedy promotion system. I've seen FAs with plenty of support passed after a few days, but I disagree with speedy promotes because you never know who will show up and oppose and when they will do it. -- Scorpion0422 20:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the speedy failure. A loose system whereby if a list is obviously going to fail then it should be speedy failed. A forced withdrawal if you will. I also agree that speedy promotions are not productive. I think a defined time limit works well. I will freely admit that i have supported an article and then things have been brought up by other editors that need fixing. Woodym555 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be fine. Lists that have existing problems that would be painfully difficult to surmount should simply be failed. A prime example of this is Religions by country, which has a bucketload of problems at its nomination, and with the nominator making no effort to meet any of the complaints raised, I highly doubt it will be able to resolve all the issues in ten days. This system would allow for this nomination to be closed and open up space. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we not WP:SNOW fail that. It won't pass, it has too many problems. Although I do remember the FLC of Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War had a rough ride, but two editors put in a lot of hard work, turning it round. Woodym555 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if a list does get a lot of early trouble, then there is no reason why it couldn't be renominated, right? -- Scorpion0422 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. In any case, so long as the nominator is making a genuine effort to meet all of the concerns, or discussion is going on about the concerns (assuming that the concerns can be resolved without a huge effort), then the nomination can remain open. Lists that have pile-on opposes, or cases where the nominator is clearly not making any effort to improve the article, can be closed. And yeah, they can simply renominate them after improvements are made. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me started on Peer Review.  Half the articles don't get any feedback whatsoever, except for an automated review which is not very helpful.  If someone is willing to offer construvtive criticism, be it here or somewhere else, let them.  Whatever improves the encyclopedia. Drewcifer 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That could work. We should only really speedy close when WP:SNOW applies, and these requirements show that. Also, this set of requirements does not alienate those editors who make herculean efforts to fix articles and meet all suggestions, which is good. I would say implement them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a place for Peer Reviews 

message: Stupid question, but why is every list article nowadays called "List of ___"?  A little self-referntial and a bit obvious don't you think?  ie List of 50 Cent awards, List of films that received the Golden Film, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (Chapter Black Saga), etc.  What's wrong with 50 Cent awards, Films that received the Golden Film, or YuYu Hakusho episodes (Chapter Black Saga)?  No other type of article does this.  "Biography of 50 Cent" "Category of films that received the Golden Film" etc.  Just wondering. Drewcifer 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just emphasizes that they're a list. The best example I can find for this is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Metal Gear Solid characters, two articles of featured quality (FA and FL respectively) that approach the subject material in a different manner. The first treats the characters as a whole in an article, commenting on character design, development, merchandise, and critical reception. The second treats the characters in a list format, including out-of-universe information along with the characters. It just makes it clear to the reader whether the article is a list or not. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't see that much of a difference between the two.  The only difference between them is the "Cast creation and influences" section in Final Fantasy article.  But all that is besides the point: I realize that saying "List of.." emphasizes the fact that they it is a list, but why should that be a concern in the article's title?  That's more a meta-wiki thing, and we try and avoid self-referencing whenever possible, right? Drewcifer 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The presence of (rather large and extensive) development and reception sections in Characters of Final Fantasy VIII sets it apart from List of Metal Gear Solid characters, emphasizing the fact that it's far more an article than it is a list. Anyhow, my point in using those two was that the Final Fantasy character article talked about the characters in general (hence the development and receptions sections), while the Metal Gear Solid character list simply listed the characters. Not including "List of..." implies that the article talks about the subject as a whole (in a significant fashion, indicating that the article is not a list) rather than a collected list of items. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly question 

message: Wondering if there can be redlinks in FLs. The one I am working on has red links...List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. Miranda 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't have a page, then are they really notable enough for inclusion in such a list? But, in answer to your question, a page that is mostly redlinks is usually excuseable under criterion 1a3 if it is part of a topic of significant study. However, in this case, a page where less than half are red links, it should be okay, for example, see List of Survivor contestants where only about 60% of the people listed have their own pages. -- Scorpion0422 06:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles have redlinks, because I haven't created them, yet. Miranda 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links in FLs 

message: User:Spebi closed the FLC nomination for The Simpsons shorts sans the necessary four supports, citing consensus gained through a lack of opposes. While I'm fairly certain that this is a result of a lack of people looking at the article rather than people not finding anything wrong with it, I'm not opposed to such early closes. To have this, however, would require a "featured list director" or two in the vein of Raul or Sandy at WP:FAC in order to determine whether consensus is really present. At the recent FLC nominations for List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1), List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2), and List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3), each nomination basically sat for multiple days after the ten day limit with three supports, and consensus was clearly in favor of it passing. Again, someone will have to take on a "featured list director" role for this to work, but it could be done. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary. Just because I stuffed up in your opinion doesn't mean that we should immediately implement some guy to run the whole show. For the record, I closed that FLC because I saw that consensus had been reached, and decided to ignore the "4 supports" rule. Let me make a note of the fact that your list of episodes, Sephiroth, are pretty much in the same boat as The Simpsons shorts. Both ran for the right time, both received not enough supports under the current rule, and both were promoted – I really don't see any difference, apart from your "certain-ness" that The Simpsons shorts didn't get those extra supports because it wasn't running long enough (which it was). Spebi 08:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'm just raising the point for possible discussion on the matter. Also note that those episode lists do have four supports, as the nominator counts as a support. I'm less worried about your close and more that this simply adds a precedent for people to arbitrarily close such nominations citing WP:IGNORE when such nominations are of lists that shouldn't be promoted, and suffered from a lack of enough eyes on the article rather than the article lacking any such flaws. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because I did it doesn't mean everyone else is going to start doing it. I think that newbies to FLC closing will be more inclined to strictly follow the rules in place about closing, rather than immediately closing prematurely and citing WP:IGNORE. So let's get this straight: your lists and The Simpsons shorts both ran for the right time, both had opportunity to receive feedback in the form of opposes. How come no one screamed "premature close" on your lists, but on The Simpsons shorts, who are in pretty much the same circumstances? I'm not going to continue the debate over your lists and the one I promoted, however, I will say that I believe that I acted appropriately by closing the FLC with only 2 supports. As for the director, you only suggest that one be implemented to prevent this sort of stuff from happening. I don't see any point of putting one in. Spebi 08:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are four supports on those lists. Mine and three other users. Anyhow, I was bringing this up just since I was curious about any implications of such a proposal. 'night, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  During a recent spat 

message: If List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) was divided into List of Naruto episodes (season 1) and List of Naruto episodes (season 2) (and coincidentally, List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) as well), would an editor be able to remove the featured status if there was a consensus to split the article, or would WP:FLRC be necessary? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would have to automatically be delisted, then the two new lists would have to be nominated. But why would you want to split them? The page isn't that long. -- Scorpion0422 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that the manner in which they were initially split was rather arbitrary, and was based around a desire to deal with less vandalism rather than concentrating on the pages themselves. Given that practically every single other episode list that composes multiple seasons (List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of YuYu Hakusho episodes) uses singular seasons, there's really no reason for these lists to deviate either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think it's necessary. The page looks good as it is and not every list has parts for single seasons. In fact, only the really notable primetime shows and a few animes have pages for seperate seasons. -- Scorpion0422 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, I'm leaving it to local consensus as to how they wish to treat the issue. I was just curious over whether a singular use could remove featured status in that situation, or a nomination at WP:FLRC would be necessary. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue that needs clarifying 

message: Few people seem to regularly visit Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates.
That problem could be solved by having removal noms posted on the same page as regular noms.
There doesn't seem to be that many noms to remove anyways, and all they need is "(remove)" added to the title.
The Transhumanist  22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal noms are already transcluded here. -- Scorpion0422 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Proposal withdrawn.  The Transhumanist (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Today, Gimmetrow offered to help use with us with his bot, which helps out Raul when he closes FAs. It is run semi-automatically. It looks for new tranclusion in the pass/fail logs, tags them as closed, moves the page if it's a fail (to make room for a later nomination), and updates the article/list talk page. We would still edit the log to add the transclusion, and put the article on the WP:FL list. Here is an example set of bot edits for a former FA.
I have considered asking him in the past, but I'm not entirely sure if it's necessary. Raul closes 20 FAs at a time, whereas here my record for most closes at once is seven, so there isn't as much work involved. However, since I'm not the only one who closes FLs, if anyone else thinks it would help, I'd be willing to switch over. -- Scorpion0422 18:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gimmebot? 

message: I've decided to use the Gimmebot for all my future promotions. User:Gimmetrow has the page on watch and says he'll be able to have it up and running within hours of a promotion. However, the process is still only semi-automatic, and there are still some things that need to be done manually:
*For promoted lists:
*#Transclude the discussion to this month's log of promoted lists.
*#Update the log tallies in .
*#Update Wikipedia:Featured lists, including the count at the top.
*#Add a notice to Template:Announcements/New featured pages.
*#Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on.
*For lists that fail to be promoted:
*#Transclude the discussion to this month's log of failed candidacies.
*#Update the log tallies in .
You no longer have to leave any kind of message on the FLC page, or update the actual article. The bot works by reading new stuff put in the promoted/failed logs and goes from there. I gave it a test yesterday and it worked well enough, so I think I'll start using it from now on. However, it means that we would have to eliminate the vote tallies, but I'm thinking of perhaps adding a special box for that that would only have the final tallies, and then the bot could still add the normal stuff.
If anyone has any questions about the bot, ask User:Gimmetrow. -- Scorpion0422 21:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Used it today, works well. I just added in a comment at the bottom of the nom. Seems like a sensible move to me, especially for the failed noms and the integration with the article history template. Woody (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Process looks nice and efficient. Good decision. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How things work with the Gimmebot 

message: We now currently have 502 Featured lists, which means we have reached the big 5-0-0! For those who are curious, the 500th one would be the second that I promoted today, which is List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks. Congratulations, and here's to 500 more in 2008. -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woo-hoo, bring on 1000. Woody (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, thats cool that my list was #500, I feel so Wiki-cool, lol.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 Featured lists! 

message: Hello: This list is currently in the middle of a debate on where certain lists w/ prose belong. See:
*Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/List of works by William Monahan
and
*Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#List_articles_as_featured_articles_versus_featured_lists
If several FLC reviewers could chime in with their opinions that would be excellent and would really help shape the debate.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of works by William Monahan]] 

message: I'm preparing a discography for possible submission to FLC. When looking at 3 featured discographies, I found questionable sources in 2 of them (the sort that would need a little explanation about the authorativeness of the source in order to placate the reader). 1 of them had blatantly not reliable sources, including a Ukranian MP3 site! I would urge reviewers and whoever closes the nominations to ensure they actually look at cited sources and don't just count the number of footnotes. Otherwise we risk having featured articles which are actually sourced from a load of dodgy websites and that is very, very dangerous. --kingboyk (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones are they and are the sources band specific fansites are some general website? -- Scorpion0422 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm making a general point for going forward, I'm not wishing to get anybody into any trouble :) I've tagged the references which are questionable and left notes on the talk pages. They're a variety actually - aforementioned MP3 site, a CD retailer, general hip hop sites, band specific web sites, self-published (i.e. one-man-band) websites, etc. --kingboyk (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at our featured discographies, you'll probably weep. I seem to remember giving yours a hard time aeons ago. The contrast between the KLF discography and supporting articles, and some of the current cruft, is huge. BTW: if you don't get a response to your talk page notes, they should come to FL removal. Just like you, people look at FLs to gauge the standard; unlike you, they won't question what they see. Colin°Talk 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably did. IIRC, it got about 50% strong support and 50% strong opposition :) I'm currently refactoring it to mirror the existing Featured discographies and have addressed the complaints from last time, so expect it to see back it here soon. In the meantime, if you want to have a look and leave me any comments please do (it's back at The KLF discography). --kingboyk (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have to agree with all the sentiments expressed here: I think the way we promote FL discographies still had as ways to go until it is perfect.  I'd say this is an especially important thing to bring up since it seems discographies are becoming the most popular type of list to nominate.  So perhaps in the interests of forming a better name for FL, we should sweep through the current FL discographies and make comments on the article's talk pages wherever neccessary.  And for the record, I think the article talk pages are a better place to do so than people's talk pages. Drewcifer (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing reliability of sources in FL candidacies 

message: I figured I'd ask here since none of the other possible talk pages have been very active, if at all.
I'm currently embroiled in a tiresome argument with  (see our respective talk pages) over the fact I moved his List of mammals in Connecticut. Long story short, the only reason most lists in :Category:Regional mammal lists are at "in" is that I haven't gotten around to move them. Otherwise, lists of organisms are at "of", but he's now arguing that because lists in general (as opposed to the relevant topical lists) have both "in" and "of", I can't argue against placing this list at "in". Can anybody try to weigh in? Circeus (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ignore Circeus' attitude and stick to the subject: I did some thinking before I named the article and even changed the name once. When possible, the names of Wikipedia articles of any standard type should be uniform so that readers who already have a sense of how Wikipedia names things can search for an article with a minimum of fuss. We tend to name geography-specific "List of people" articles as "List of people from Foo" for instance. I don't see a consensus on "list of organisms" articles. Lists of birds by geography, for instance, seems to be done as List of North American birds. (I was wrong: Most bird lists use "of") I did see what looked like a norm for mammals lists at :Category:Regional mammals lists, where the vast majority say "in". IF we're going to standardize "List of X by geograpnhy" articles, then we should follow common practice already in place unless there's a good reason to change it. The vast majority of geography-specific lists use "in Foo", especially when the items (buildings & structures, police districts) don't tend to move ("List of rivers in Foo" articles are an exception, and there are a few others). Take a look at :Category:United Kingdom-related lists and :Category:United States-related lists, and :Category:Canada-related lists for examples.Noroton (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List naming convention: "of" vs. "in" 

message: Now that WP:LOTD is up and running we were trying to expose it to readers at WP:FC by adding .  This has been controversial.  Please comment at Portal_talk:Featured_content#List_of_the_Day.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOTD 

message: The instructions say:
:If you are resubmitting an article, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the  template of the article's talk page.
I think this is harder than it needs be, and it is liable to leave behind broken links. Imho, it would be easier and better to add a parameter to  for the nomination page name, so that new noms can take the form of e.g. "Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The KLF discography (2nd nomination)".
Would such a scheme present any problems and if not does anyone object to me modifying the template and instructions? --kingboyk (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, with the GimmeBot doing things now, it automatically corrects all of the links. -- Scorpion0422 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to take your word for that as I fixed them myself (sigh) but nonetheless it's still creating extra work. --kingboyk (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second and subsequent nominations 

message: I have created two sample lists for early College Football All-America Teams.  They are:
* 1925 College Football All-America Team
* 1931 College Football All-America Team
Before rolling out further into other years, I would be interested in any feeback that folks here might have.Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Football All-America Teams 

message: In the "Supporting and objecting" section it says "If you oppose a nomination, write "Oppose" followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." However, a user here is currently misinterpreting it as saying that it is okay to ignore the FL criteria if it is not fixable. I believe the user is thinking that the word addressed means fixed, and it has to be something that can be changed, but it shouldn't be that way. I have always interpreted it as being targetted more at opposition based on non-criteria, not opposition based on criteria. Should this be reworded, or is it okay? -- Scorpion0422 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Scorpion0422, the meaning behind that statement is to stop people from giving outrageous rationales for opposing.  Such as opposing because someone chose blue highlight instead of yellow, or something stupid like that.  I think that it may need to be reworded in saying that the only criteria that you can base an oppose on is the FL criteria, that suggestions and comments are of course welcome but opposes must be based on the criteria.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this reworded? 

message: I've been looking over some older FLs and I'm starting to think that we should do an FL sweeps pass sort of thing of some of the pre-2007 lists. Some of these older FLs have fallen into real neglect and unfortunately not enough people notice it. The GA folks often do things like that (more info), although the processes are quite a bit different, we'd still be able to find some of the less maintained lists out there and put them up for review. -- Scorpion0422 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a very good idea to me. While some FLs are well maintained, some of the older ones have not been and in still being listed as FLs, I think they degrade the FL designation. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. We should do a pass, and start doing them on a regular basis in some sort of organized way, starting with your list above. How long are you going to wait on your editor warnings before putting them up for review? List of particles, at least, has seen no edits since your 1/12 posting on the talk page. Geraldk (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With the List of Super Bowl champions, there was a message for almost 2 months and nobody did anything about it until I put it up for FLR, so perhaps we should just go ahead with some FLRs so that people will get to work. -- Scorpion0422 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but maybe we should try to do a little bit at a time.  FLC is already a bit backlogged, so adding 12+ reviews all at once might be a mistake. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An FLR requires a minimum of 2 weeks, so perhaps 3 or 4 for now, then a couple more can be nominated when the current FLRs finish. -- Scorpion0422 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Should we start with the first four on your list, or should we start at the top of the FL list and go a little at a time? Geraldk (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An FL sweeps? 

message: Hi, working on a future FLC but I've never done one of these before. Is there a venue I can go for peer review/ideas before nominating, as I obviously don't want to waste people's time taking something to FLC that is not ready. Thanks Orderinchaos 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the article falls under a certain project, check there to see if they have an "in-house" review process.  If not, then submit it for a regular peer review, which can take lists as well as articles. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the volume of featured list candidates, does anyone think the idea of a list peer review would be useful? This would aid greatly in minimising the candidates page, as well as ensuring that all nominations are at least close to being featured list class when they arrive here. Any thoughts? Seaserpent85 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it would be good (and nice).  I have some lists I'm prepping for FL, but would love to be able to get them peer reviewed first.  While I think lists can be done in the regular peer review, unfortunately I think a lot of times they get even less feedback than regular ones. :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about everyone else here, but I've rarely had success with peer reviews.  My requests have tended to go completely absent of comments, except for the automated review thingie.  So I'm not much of a fan of that process.  People only seem to give suggestions/comments on articles/lists if a promotion is at stake.  That, and dividing the FL workload between two places might actually slow things down rather than speed it up. Drewcifer (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would all depend on seeing how many people would be willing to be active "list reviewers", I guess. The problem with the present peer review is that it includes a mish-mash of everything; articles trying for FA, articles trying for GA and lists trying for FL - hence reviewers pick and choose what to review. I'd assume that those active in the FL area would be more likely to comment at a list review than at the general peer review, especially if it was favoured that FLCs had been through a list review. I'm fairly active with featured portals, and the way it works there is that any nominations with evident problems are directed to the portal peer review. This stops those seeking comments and improvements clogging up the nomination page just to get feedback - whether or not that would work with the volume we have here is another matter, I guess. Seaserpent85 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (e/c) I agree on all points. Stagger the notices on talk pages, those that are working to improve them can be left for as long as it takes. I have left a note on Battles of the Mexican-American War and am watching it. If no-one is watching, I will take it on myself. I do think that FLC is backlogged though, even with a couple of speedy closes recently. I think the trouble is that people are using us as a PR. Back to the point though, we do need a sweep. Woody (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review question 

message: I made added a few sentences to the FLC instructions template, and I just wanted to make sure everyone approved. It's basically common sense stuff, but based on some recent FLCs, I figured it was best to reiterate some things.  -- Scorpion0422 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some revisions to the instructions template 

message: Since we have gotten more and more FLC's here recently, I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for reducing the length of nominations that have extended conversation on them.  Look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Christopher Walken filmography for two examples of excessively long comments that make the WP:FLC very long.  I dont have anything wrong with having long comments, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to maybe shorten these comments.  Some ideas I had were add to the instructions that if you feel there is a lot needed, to put your comments on the talk page of the nom page and add a comment to the nom page like:
Oppose See comments on talk page.~~~~ (with a link to heading in the talk page)
This would allow extended conversation to go behind the main nom page and if all the suggestions are fixed then the reviewer can go back and strike the oppose, stating all suggestions have been met.
Or...
Something like they use over at WP:FAC:
I like the use of the hide template personally, but I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts about the subject or any ideas.  Thanks!Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Either would be a good solution, I think.  Though sometimes people get protective of their comments when you use the hide template.  But, the good thing about the hide template, in my opinion, is that it kind of resets the FLC back to square one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha yeah, it probably wouldn't be good to do it to someone else's comments, maybe just ask them if their comments get really long.  But I think it would be especially good for any comments that are resolved, because, as you said, it brings the nom back to square one and if people really want to read past comments, they are just one click away.  I was hoping that maybe some of the regulars could start using it so that it could catch on here and persuade others to use it.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have real problems with an FLC, I tell them to take it to peer review. If it can't be avoided, I try and add them to the talk page of the article. I use the hide template on FACs at the moment, so I think they are a good idea. Woody (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the length of FLC's 

message: I think it should be standard policy on a FLRC discussion page for the first line to explain who has been contacted about the nomination.  It is difficult to tell whether the proper people know about an issue.  I can see that List of Super Bowl champions had five editors who have twenty or more edits on the page with at least one falling in the last year.  It would be great if at the top of each FLRC it said something like
:Contacted: WP:NFL and The five leading editors: User:Zzyzx11 User:Psantora User:Smith03 User:KyuuA4 User:Phoenix2 --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the FAR way of doing things is helpful. We could probably just copy over their line about making sure you notify people. Woody (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why? It's not out responsibility to make sure everyone sees it. And usually I'll leave a post at the WikiProject talk page. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it is common courtesy. Usually a note to the project talkpage and a note to the previous nominator should be enough. I just think we have to try and do all we reasonably can to ensure it maintains FL status. Woody (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLRC 

message: Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally.  The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page.  I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly archiving