Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 1

message: After just two weeks, I think we can be very happy with the amount of traffic here. Clearly this process is meeting some kind of need.
It looks like the birds list can be out first FL, but as I nominated it, I'd be happier if someone else did the deed. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:32, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
*Done.  Had to set up Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log, then updated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, Wikipedia:Featured lists, Wikipedia:Goings-on, Talk:List of North American birdsWikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2005 - phew!  Let me know if I missed something. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress to date

message: Would anybody be interested in setting out standards at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists?  We could have specified guidelines for kinds of lists, like lists of officeholders, trivia lists, etc?  Also, could timelines be considered a list for this project's purposes?  (a list of themed dates in chronological order) Tuf-Kat 01:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:That might not be a bad idea... it seems like we are going to have different requirements on FLC for different types of lists (a "mostly comprehensive" list of presidents of the U.S. isn't going to cut it, but a "mostly comprehensive" list of fictional bears might get more support).  Working out the references issue would be helpful too.  As for timelines, I think they would be useful as well – I'm not sure that I've seen a good example of one on Wikipedia, so they're definitely needed. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
::And lines of succession as well. --Dmcdevit 02:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think timelines is quite a good idea.  The general idea I think should be to have quality content that is not, and cannot be by its nature, in the form of prose.--Pharos 01:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject and timelines

message: This has been here for 15 days now. For obvious reasons, I'm reluctant to be the one to deal with it. Can anyone help out? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
*Okay, I think I did it right. Updated the nom page, removing it, updated the log page, adding the discussion, and updated the FL page adding its name. Since we don't have a Raul, can you put up instructions on promoting somewhere so anyone can be sure to do it right? --Dmcdevit 07:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantos list

message: I have copied the transclusion technique that we use for WP:FAC to this page as it makes it easier to follow individual nominations, jguk 23:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the the already logged nominations be transcluded as well, since the templates link to them now? Also, do we have a failed FLC template like FAC, because currently it looks like all the failed ones still have the candidate template. --Dmcdevit 06:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I transcluded all the existing nominations as part of setting it all up. I haven't transcluded the old nominations though as I didn't see the point. Fair point about the failed FLC template, jguk 07:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transclusion 

message: As I'm not sure where else to talk about lists, I figure that I'd tell everyone here that the Wikipedia Microsoft notice board has a thread about a list of Microsoft topics (see WP:MSNB#Lists). If anyone would be able to assist, we would appreciate it. Also, drop a note to say "Hi" if you do! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft topics 

message: Filiocht is away this week; I am going to be very busy at work for the next few weeks, and in any event feel the need for a Wikibreak, so will be away (trying not to read, let alone edit) until 1 August, possibly later.  Please would someone take good care of WP:FLC and WP:FL in our absence.  The main thing is to archive nominations after 10 days or so, filing in the current "featured log" or "failed log" as appropraite.  (NB - this does not need admin powers.)  -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
:I'll help out, but I have a feeling we could make this a group effort. --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 19:39 (UTC)
::It all seems to be going quite well, although contributions seem to be slowing down.  If anyone is looking for more "easy wins" in terms of pretty good existing lists, :Category:Lists and its sub-categories are good places to browse.  For example, Hilbert's problems looks good to me already: it even has references!  I'll pop in occasionally, but I am still "away" for the next couple of weeks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Away

message: I've noticed that a lot of the lists nominated for featured status recently have lacked a certain finished, polished quality.  Many of them have undergone heavy editing while under nomination.  Of course, this is one of the benefits of becoming a featured list candidate, more people see the list in question and improve it.  However, some articles are clearly not ready for FLC and their nomination only leads to unstable articles and extended nominations that last while the lists undergo extensive editing.  I think the featured list criteria should specify that lists should spend some time on peer review before being nominated.  Any thoughts? --Sophitus 17:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't see a problem with where we are at present as featured lists are a new concept. We're still learning about what the standards are. It seems the answer is variable at present - eg New Zealand cricket captains gets blasted for not having more pictures, yet the elements lists pass easily without pictures. A longer process on here helps us develop standards over a period of time - secreting that discussion on peer review (which, quite frankly has little readership anyway) is unlikely to help much. Once FLs are more established, things may change, jguk 18:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FLs unready for nomination

message: Take a look at this: List of political parties in India. I can neaten it up and make it presentable, but is it worth featuring? There are many red links which may hamper it being featured. I don't think its worth creating an article for each link, some parties are really very small. Any suggestions on how to improve it and if it is feasible? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't see a problem with de-linking the unrecognised parties that have no article. The other improvements would be some idea of what the politics of each party are. The language needs improving too - it doesn't quite look right. Finally, get rid of the self-reference. Just state what you're doing, no need to explain how it differs from other WP articles, jguk 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links 

message: Hi! I visit the featured lists and featured list candidates once in a while. In the meantime, it would be great if actual list names were mentioned in the edit summaries of the FL and FLC during nominations and promotions, in addition to "promote one more" etc. Could this be arranged? --Eddi (Talk) 14:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming candidates in the edit summaries 

message: Hi,
I started to add a rulers.org entry for every country. I was at Azerbaijan when I received a message advising me not to do so for understandable reasons. Read the thread to get the idea.
I'm posting here because there is some potential for a list and maybe some people with more time to share than me would like to create such a List of rulers, worldwide and “History-wide”. Reply to David Latapie 20:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of rulers 

message: It had to happen eventually:  the first featured list removal candidate has been nominated - see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FLRC

message: I'd like to have it explained to me what an Official oppose is, who can make them, and on what authority. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At present there are two de facto promoters and failers of featured list candidates, ALoan and myself, though I'm sure we'd welcome others to the role. Largely it's an automated process - a nomination with five supports and no opposes will be promoted, one with two supports and three opposes will be failed. Once in a while, there's a need for a judgment call, which is sometimes to leave the nomination open for a few more days to allow for more comment, and sometimes used to promote or fail lists. There are, however, basic requirements to a featured list, and References is an essential requirement. When about to promote two lists yesterday I noticed that in one case there were no references, and in another, there appeared to be inadequate references. For that reason I delayed promoting these lists for four days to allow that issue to be addressed. Had there been full references, I would have promoted them (they clearly have sufficient support for promotion once references have been added). At present, it seems some think I have been over-eager in my request for more refs to the tube station list. I'm happy to bow to the community - and at present I fully expect that I'll be in a position to promote both lists on Christmas Day (once the additional four days I have allowed have expired), jguk 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, jguk and I have historically made most of the promotion decisions, but that is rarely a difficult task and anyone could do it if they felt so inclined.  We don't have a ratified director like Raul654 on WP:FAC or the Bureaucrats on WP:RFA, and I don't think we really need one (many pages seem to get by without a specific person being is anyone "in charge" - WP:FPC or WP:DR or WP:AFD).  I'm also not convinced that we need "official" oppose votes, any more than "strong" or "weak" support of opposition means very much.  A plain "oppose" is sufficient for me.  (If we are going to have "official" opposition, I think Filiocht should be on the list, as he created this page). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official oppose" 

message: Also, the criteria for lists include the fact that it must have a majority of blue links. If the majority of blue links in a candidate are links to stub articles, is someone allowed to object on that rationale? IMO, it doesn't strictly violate the letter of the criteria, but it does violate the spirit of them.   There seem to be several people, please don't name names, who create a bunch of short stubs to blue a bunch of red links. Tell me that people don't do that so they can artificially meet featured list criteria. Tell me that people create featurable lists to show off the best of Wikipedia, rather than doing it for its own sake. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This practice is quite common in FAC too, where it is generally accepted. I personally don't like it, but as long as the stubs are informative enough... I wouldn't consider it a strong enough reason why to oppose a nomination. But that's me. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing 

message: This issue came up in the recently nominated List of Mega Man weapons... some lists simply don't link to any articles, because the list in itself is a compilation of the information on the subject. Such lists frequently occur as a result of merging articles, for instance in the area of fiction or lesser-known media figures (e.g. candidates of Some Show), or other items that have little information on them, such as minor planetoids. Is there any particular reason why such a list cannot become featured? If not I propose amending the What Is page accordingly. Radiant_>|< 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why that should be a problem. We certainly shouldn't be creating links if decisions have already been taken that those articles are better dealt with in a single list format. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Some lists are informative enough, and even provide external links to related items. -ZeroTalk 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists that don't have links 

message: Does an admin officially have to change the status of the FLC? It seems that a normal editor can simply stick the template into place?
Anyway,
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chief Ministers of India - no votes
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tallest structures in Paris - (6-2) including nominator vote
*Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Swimming World Swimmers of the Year - (4-0) excluding nominator
have all passed the 10 day mark
Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Ian says, in principle, anyone can do it when they see that it needs doing (we are not quite to hide-bound by rules and regulations as the WP:FA crew ;).  The instructions are on the page; no admin abilities are needed to do any of the updating.  But if you are going to do it, please make sure you do all of the updating (archiving, talk pages, WP:GO, etc), otherwise it all gets rather messy. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who administers the promotion? 

message: Depending on how you count, we have either just passed, or will reach in the next few days, the 100th featured list.  See Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100th FL 

message: How old should a list be before it is put forward for nomination; I ask specifically about Nuclear power by country, which seems to fulfil all the FL criteria, but was only created today. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong in nominating "fresh" lists as long as they meet the requirements. Actually there was one list nominated I believe the second day it was created, but it failed. Not because it was too new, but because it failed the requirements, especially citing references. I think the list above is really good and it gets my support. Renata 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated this one day after it was created(I did some sandbox work before that tho).  It seems to be doing well, with no concerns about the list(so far).  I don't beleive age should be a factor.  Joe  I 07:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: I have started a discussion on red links  here, but am guessing that not many people are watching the page. If you would like to discuss it, please do. Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red link discussion 

message: Regulars of FLC may be interested in a (more or less) current Request for Comments regarding the use of fair use images in lists. It can be found at Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images on lists 

message: I wrote the some post in WP:FL, but it seems that that page isn't watched much. Well, what do you think about creating a collaboration which aims at promoting lists to FL status? CG 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New collaboration 

message: I've been working on getting List of Oregon State University people up to FL status and I submitted it for peer review.  One of the comments was that each name should have an inline citation after it instead of simply listing all the refs at the bottom as general references.  Is this in fact what should be done?  For all the football players, that would be one VERY long list of  a b c d e f etc. next to the reference.  I'm not sure what it does past 26, but it would far exceed that. VegaDark 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations on lists of people after each name? 

message: I nominated Narnian timeline for FL status on 13 November and it was closed 23 November, after 10 days, as is policy. However, only one person had commented on it (and it wasn't a "support" or "object" vote either, just a comment which I think I resolved). I feel that failing a nomination after 10 days makes no sense, it may be that people just didn't see it or that people declined to comment on it. I think a nomination should be left until some sort of consensus is reached -- or at least one vote is made. Failing it based on lack of participation, rather than quality, is self-contradictory.--Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always considered lack of participation as a sign that the list is not ready yet. We have many experienced regulars in FLC already as to be able to afford that assumption. In any case, advertising of nominations is allowed as long as it does not ask people to vote one way or the other. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the point, even though I don't entirely agree. I'll go put a notice in at the VP and Esperanza, and renominate it. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm… I must have been out of touch at ESP and the VP for a while. Isn't there some sort of place where you can list bulletins about goings-on in the community? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 22:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sort of Fiction wikiproject might be more appropriate than a general forum, which might grow tired if every featured candidate was advertised. Colin°Talk 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, but a Fiction WP might be biased. Oh, well. There is still one issue in need of citing in the list. I'm searching for a reference now. I'll wait till I find it and then just renominate it.  Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the 4 support rule strictly enforced anyway? List of Indian ODI cricketers passed despite having only three, and with Tintin pointing out that the list was not up to date as was asserted in the text. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I promote, yes - although I have been known on occasion to add my support to make 3 (plus nominator makes 4) before promoting.  Perhaps User:Rune.welsh's promotion included an implicit "support", but you would have to ask him to know for sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My support is usually implied (I don't bother editing the nomination because promotion takes many clicks already). In cases when I oppose, I let the nomination run a little more. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's encouraging. I'll go inquire at the Fiction WikiProject. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 days? 

message: In the section "To archive a nomination", shouldn't there be somethign about putting  in the article itself? I ask because List of Saskatchewan general elections didn't get this added when it was promoted (I've since added it myself). Tompw 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't do that myself, since I don't quite like the idea of adding metadata to the articles. Usually other people do it after the week's Signpost goes live. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  promotion proceedure 

message: The opera corpus. Problems: As a straight-out comrehensive list of simple factts, it's verifiable by any encyclopedia of music, but not significantly cited as that would be awkward, given the facts are not disputed. Is it worth submitting? Adam Cuerden talk 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still need to explicitly cite your source(s) at the end of the article. If one source has been used for the whole list, you need to make sure it is not a copyvio to duplicate it here. Other than that the number of redlinks may be an issue. Other reviewers may come up with their own ideas of how to improve this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on possible candidate? 

message: There's been some discussion following a failed GA nomination as to whether or not English football league system would be eligable for FL status. My main concern is whether or not it contains too much prose before to be eligable to be a "list"... what do people think? Tompw (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility for FL status 

message: I've notied of late that more and more articles are not makign the cut for FL status. Not because they're bad lists, but because there aren't enough people voting on them. Articles will go two weeks with two votes. This shows me that there's a problem somewhere, and I'm thinking less and less it's due to the lists themselves. Do we need to try and get more people to be regulars here? What should be done with this? As far as I know FA and FP never have this problem. --Wizardman 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for more reviewers over at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Is there anywhere else we should try? Colin°Talk 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A related problem is lists that have enough support votes and enoguh time has elapsed, but don't get promoted. I would suggest maybe leaving messages on previous voters' talk pages, askign them to vote on at least one page. Tompw (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of participation 

message: If I cannot find images for every member of a list, would it be better to not have images for any of them to keep the list looking consistent?  I'm working on the , and for some provinces I cannot find images for all premiers.  Some already-featured lists of heads of government have reached featured status without having pictures of every person, so a complete set of images is not needed for nomination.  Would a list be more likely to pass if it had no images at all and looked internaly consistent rather than including all the images I could find?  --Arctic Gnome 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd vote for "none." Because they strech out the table and don't look too pleasing. Renata 23:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a quick reply, thanks.  In terms of images stretching out the table, I should point out that before I submit any more of the lists I will fill out the table with more information (like links to elections) like there is on List of Prime Ministers of Canada, so the columns beside the images won't be all empty space.  Not sure if that makes a difference to your opinion, but it's something to keep in mind.  --Arctic Gnome 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, a FL "has images if they are appropriate to the subject", so I would say some images is definately better than no images. In fact, if a list would benefit from an image or images (and they exsist), then their absence would could against their candidacy. Tompw (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ''some'' images better than ''no'' images? 

message: I think we should tidy this up. Someone has created a new account today, explicitly stated that they are a buddy of one of the FLC authors on their userpage, and promoted that FLC despite it being 3-2 excluding obvious socks, having 50% redlinks and not sourced properly. I think we should knuckle down on a more serious criteria on who can promote these things. I had to rollback that bogus FLC passing. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually looking back, the only supports on that FL are socks and meats <100 edits. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, previously, is anybody allowed to promote a FL? That's interesting… I never knew that! :-) I suppose it could be by # of edits (100, 500, etc.) and/or by length of time been here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to say "editors in good standing", or even admins only; we could adopt something like the non-admin thing at WP:DELPRO, regarding "editors in good standing can close obvious one-way-or-the-other ones after x days (the full allotment)", and "only admins can make tight calls". Daniel.Bryant 06:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea that only admins can promote on the grounds that adminship is not suppose to be a big deal and that there are plenty of trustworthy editors without admin status.  I do, however, agree that some kind of "good standing" requirement is needed.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: FL just isn't getting enough reviewers for us to start formally restricting who can do what. And anyway, if someone stepped out of line, what would you do that you wouldn't do just now? I'm not aware of any regulars who are admins. The only recent examples of mis-promotion (two cases) were done by editors unfamiliar with the rules and naturally keen to promote their own (or a friend's) work. We need to correct any impression that it is a vote or that an oppose can be ignored lightly. Perhaps we should move the "To archive a nomination" section to a sub-page and expand it. It would then have room for some guidance. There may be some merit in having a list of people who are willing to participate in promotion/fail part of the process – so that editors have a list of people they can as for guidance. Colin°Talk 09:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I have been ignoring WP:FLC for a while, and rune.welsh seems to be away too.  I think that, until about December, we were the ones who actually processed promotions (and - not that this is very relevant - we both happen to be admins, as are various other FLC participants).  However, I don't think we need to formally appoint a group of people who are "authorised" to promote - many hands, light work, etc.  What is important is that the FLC participants and the persons undertaking the promotion have common, widely-understood and  consistent standards for promotion.  We need to be clear what the criteria for promoting are - in particular, we need to make sure that lists are not promoted where there are unresolved objections. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  People who have promoted/failed lists in 2007: ALoan (3 lists), myself (29), Colin (1), Blnguyen (7), User:The Bread (2), Rune.welsh (5) Michaelas10 (1) ... (a total of 48 - either I've missed someone, miscounted or three got done without the summary saying anything). Ummm... not sure if this is a good state of affairs or not. I don't think one person should be doing two thirds of all promotions, because it doesn't look good. *is now somewhat embaressed*. Tompw (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well done, and thanks :)  That is slightly more diverse than I had expected, actually - and I only just did my three yesterday*!  I think Rune.welsh did most last year, but he has gone missing.  As I said, I will try to look in more often.  It is not such a problem for one person to do most of them - one advantage is that a single closer will probably be reasonably consistent with themselves. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  * and a fourth today.  I think this month's failed counter was out by two, if that helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who can promote? 

message: There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images about the permitted level of usage of Fair Use images in Featured Lists. Your input would be welcomed. 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate continues.  At least one FL List of South Park episodes has had its images removed. —Moondyne 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Use images 

message: In order to allow closing editors to explain their actions in a more eloquent manner than the edit summary allows, I'd like to propose that closed nominations are "boxed up", in the same way that Featured Articles nominations are. (See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log for examples). This is probably more important in the case of failed nominations, especially when the closing editor has to make a potentially controversial descisions. For an example, see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Wiltshire. It uses User:Tompw/sandbox12, with a single (unnamed) parameter for the closing editor's comments.
What do people think? Tompw (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of the lack of objections, I shall go ahead with this. It will be easy enough to remove if people dislike it. Tompw (talk) (review) 21:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Tom, meant to comment earlier and forgot about it. I find your "10 days, 4 support, 0 oppose" comments in the edit summary to be useful. They give an idea of the number of comments and any controversy. However, if that is all you say on the closing comments, we're going to get people thinking it is a vote. The FA log doesn't actually say anything other than that it was promoted (or not). AfD closures tend to include some justification and suggestions. Colin°Talk 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure boxes 

message: We all like the Simpsons and watching the NBA and NFL.  That stuff's fun, and it's cool the way people have listed some important stuff about them.  2003 NBA Draft was an important one, seeing LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony rise.  Now I've been trying to pull together a List of the writings of William Monahan but some seem to think it's not worthy of a list.  It's a depthy subject about a great raw talent who was well known in New York.  Anyways, the problem is a bunch of kids at AfD want to delete the list before it's even completed.  Frankly, I find it frightening.  If you do too please vote to Keep the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the writings of William Monahan.-BillDeanCarter 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A crisis in quality 

message: Is there a procedure for withdrawn noms? A list I generated from a script was nominated, and I've persuaded the nominator that it is a bad idea and should be withdrawn, but I don't see a procedure for this. Do we just lump them in with failed noms? Yomanganitalk 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawn 

message: A rewrite of WP:FICT is being proposed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Rewrite proposed. Needs polishing, clarification, and so on, but it's a start. — Deckiller 22:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FICT rewrite 

message: This article has been on FLC for over a month now, thanks entirely to Shudda's opposition and refusal to accept the notability of inducters; this in comparison to eight (8) support votes. Clearly something has to be done to wrap this up, and I don't think the appropriate thing to do is close it because of one minority opposition vote, but it also doesn't seem right to promote it with any outstanding opposes. Thoughts? --MarcK 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, if it's just one opposition who won't buckle then we should promote it, especially if it's 8-1. Kinda obvious promotion to me actually. Wizardman 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame 

message: (crossposting from WP:VPA)
There is somewhat of a discussion on FLC about this, and I wanted to ask here. What kind of picture style to folks like in lists of people? There's three different kinds:
#No pictures at all. (List of Governors of Georgia)
#Pictures along the side of notable or picture-available people. (List of Governors of Alabama, List of Governors of Kentucky)
#Pictures for every entry. (List of Governors of Louisiana, List of Governors of California).
Personally, I greatly prefer option #2; I feel that having pictures in the table bloats it horribly. Also, there's the situation, especially on Alabama, where over half the people don't have good free images available; that's why, for example, I don't have a picture of George Wallace there. When I had the pictures in the table itself, it was full of "placeholder" images, which didn't add any value to the table whatsoever. I can see an exception for national office holders, since 1) it tends to be easier to get pictures of those, and 2) they're far more recognizable than governors or lesser offices. But I wanted to see where other folks stood on this. (and FYI, the Georgia article only has no pictures because they haven't been added yet, but I wanted to portray that option as well) --Golbez 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another list question 

message: Featured Articles have a Featured Article Review; do we have something similar for Lists? Or does Featured List Removal kind of deal with that? I ask because I don't think List of Governors of Delaware presently stands up as a featured list (it was promoted over a year ago), but I don't necessarily want to remove it; I want to see if others agree, and if so, I'll spruce it up. But if no one else agrees, who am I to tamper with a featured list? --Golbez 23:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:FLRC is the same as WP:FAR. There is definitely a lot of trivial information in that Delaware list (i.e. Occupation, county). I don't think it's necessary to list it in the WP:FLRC, though. If you know a way to improve it, go ahead.--Crzycheetah 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: People "tamper with" featured material all the time. There's no extra protection for featured stuff over non-featured other than a degree of respect. So be bold. If you plan radical changes, post a message on the list's talk page first, and consider asking any key editors directly. It is better for the list to be spruced up than to go through a review, unless you feel the list is seriously broken. Colin°Talk 08:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured List Review?