Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Archive 1

message: I will be splitting list of cultural and regional genres of music into User:TUF-KAT/List of genres of music by region and a list of genres of music by people.  See the User:TUF-KAT/List of genres of music by region for the format I've come up with, basically nicked from list of popes.  Would this seem agreeable?  The references present so far are essays from a collection by various authors -- ideally, however, a reference should be more authoritative and academic than a world music book, but adding a separate reference for every region with a "music of" would make this page very long, so...  Anyway, feedback would be most appreciated. Tuf-Kat 19:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
:One, very superficial, response is that without gridlines, this kind of table becomes hard to read. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
::What's a gridline?  Are you referring to the difficulty in remembering which column is which?  If so, I agree, but I'm not sure how to make it easier. Tuf-Kat 22:27, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
:::Maybe gridline is not the right word. I mean horizontal and vertical lines to make it easier to follow across roads. Does anyone know how to do this? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
::::I added colors to the columns.  Does that help?  On an unrelated note, do all lists really need references?  This is primarily meant as a list of articles that either exist or should soon, to aid in navigation.  References should be in their respective articles, I think, but only make User:TUF-KAT/List of genres of music by region even more bloated. Tuf-Kat 20:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
::::Also, I notice a lot of lists with countries on them have begun using the little flag icons (e.g. European Constitution#Parliamentary approval of the Treaty).  Is this considered standard now?  Should I implement it? Tuf-Kat 20:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I think the flags are pleasing to the eye (and may be your best way to fulfill the images requirement). --Dmcdevit 20:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe will nominate soon, need feedback 

message: Believe it or not, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates, it is being claimed that list of religious topics should never be featured because we can never hope to prove that every possible religious topic that anyone could ever think of is listed there.  Only things like list of presidents of the United States, in which we can prove that every president is there, can be considered comprehensive, on this view, and therefore only those can be featured lists.  I proposed list of lists of mathematical topics (NOT list of mathematical topics) as a featured list.  It is comprehensive in any reasonable sense of the word, and it's really an amazing work.  But it's being opposed on those grounds. Michael Hardy 22:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd ways of construing "comprehensive" 

message: I'm posting Filiocht's proposal here for more discussion; I'm not sure if I agree or not.  He said 'I would also propose that the criteria be ammended to read "Includes references where appropriate"' in the context of the List of lists of mathematical topics.  Thoughts? --Spangineer (háblame) 13:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I suppose, but in any case, couldn't some external link to a useful website, that may not have been usd in writing the article, always be scrounged up? And shouldn't there always be some "See Also" WP links? It's just, if we make references optional, I don't want the bottom to be totally bare, so we could require a See Also or External Links section. --Dmcdevit 18:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: ::Covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic
"Researching" is too narrow; it means you have a clear idea what questions you want to ask about the subject.  One of the current candidates is absolutely magnificent for use when you're browsing to learn about the subject without yet knowing what questions to ask.  That is an important part of learning, and an important reason to regard some lists as immensely valuable.  See the comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics under "Being a partial reply to Dmharvey's question posted above". Michael Hardy 20:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing "reseaching" to "interested in"? Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed emendation to the list of criteria 

message: Would a glossary or terminology be considered a list?  Such as Numismatic terminology?  If yes, then I can work on it.  Joe I 12:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossaries 

message: If no public domain images exist, can a list become featured with images using fair use and used with permision tags?  --Arctic Gnome 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can and has in many of the previous featured lists. As long as all the images pass WP:FUC and have proper fair use rational write-ups on their image page, then it shouldn't be a problem. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright 

message: I wonder if it would be useful to have the criterion:
* Finished appearance: Does not give the impression that it is still a work in progress.
This can be thought of as a clarification of the comprehensive criteria, which currently is concerned only with the presence of list entries rather than the details of each entry. It might be possible to combine it:
*Comprehensive and of finished appearance: Covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject. Does not give the impression that it is still a work in progress.
This is intended to discourage featuring lists (often in table format) that have a significant number of gaps or empty cells, where one could reasonably expect a finished work to have the data. Examples:
:* Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal should have Rise/Fall data for every lock.
:* List of Anuran families, as a picture-list, should have photos for the majority of entries.
:* List of notable brain tumor patients will never be able to supply Survival or Diagnosis for all people. That's OK.
I think this criterion is needed to be explicit for FL rather than FA. Firstly, our current text is specifically concerned with the presence of entries for the list "set". The FA text says "does not neglect major facts and details" and it is the details bit I'm trying to cover here. Another difference with FA's is due to the way lists are constructed. Often a skeleton list takes shape, including all the entries, before all the details are filled in.
An alternative phrase might be apparently complete. We all know Wikipedia articles continue to change and evolve. A reader looking at featured material is entitled to expect to get the impression of a finished work.
Thoughts?
Colin°Talk 17:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tension between requiring completeness and requiring verifiability.  Information could be required to be is included (to meet the completeness requirement) but also required to be excluded (because it is not verifiable). Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal is a case in point - the missing information simply does not exist in a verifiable source, as far as the authors have been able to discover.  I think "comprehensive" does this to a sufficient extent already - the whole of the defined scope must be included, and no major elements missed out. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished Appearance 

message: The new rewritten WP:WIAFA seems to have bedded down well, so I thought it was worth trying to rewrite the FL criteria in a similar style (the original FL criteria were based on a modified form of the old FA criteria in the first place).  I have copied the new FA criteria over, and then amended to remove the FA criteria that we don't use (well-written, neutral, length) and add in our extra ones (useful, uncontroversial, well-constructed).  I have tried to keep the paragraph numbering the same (so (b) is "comprehensive" in both, for example) to make it easier for FA reviewers to make the transition to FLs, and vice versa.
Comments, as ever, are welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly I did not have this page watchlisted and only noticed the changes now. Well done with the rewrite! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The current criteria state:
:It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
The requirement for captions resulted in debate at
*Wikipedia:Peer review/List of English monarchs/archive1
*Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Portuguese monarchs
*Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of French monarchs
I think that for such table-lists, the need for a full explicit caption is eliminated by the fact that the row identifies the person being illustrated. There is an argument that a caption provides extra info on the picture itself (location, context, date, artist, etc). The Wikipedia:Captions guideline says
:Not every Wikipedia image needs a caption: some are simply decorative. A very few may genuinely be self-explanatory. If you decide that an image does not need a caption, then please follow the advice at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to specify appropriate "alt" text.
Therefore I suggest the FLC be rewritten:
:It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status.
Colin°Talk 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alt text would be fine; it's just the table will be a mess if there are captions. --Majorly (Talk) 13:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Images in tables rarely need captions. --ALoan 14:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "alt" text is a perfect solution.  I really did  not strongly want to have captions, so much as I wanted the issue clarified.  Which seems to be happening.  So perhaps there is not really much debate needed here since I am the only one who made comments saying captions were needed--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Captions 

message: I don't know if this has been done before but would dates qualify for featured list status? They certanelty are not articles. If anyone else thinks it is possible than I will start nominating some dates to see how it works. The Placebo Effect
:Can you give an examples?  Are you thinking of articles like 2006 and 23 February? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking od dates, but years would work a,so. The Placebo Effect 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You many struggle to find references... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: Would discography pages like The Beatles discography, Green Day discography, etc. be considered lists and therefore be eligible for featured list nomination? – Zntrip 00:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as a discopgraphy is a list of albumns and singles produced by band or artiste, I would say yes, these are lists, and thus potentially Featured Lists. Tompw (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography pages 

message: Ok... given the (vast) amount of discussion above on the general idea, I'd like to propose a specific addition:
:The use of a copyright image for every item in a list will be held to contravene point 3 of the fair use policy, which states "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible".
Please indicate your support or opposition, including a brief comment if you wish. If you have more detailed comments to make, please put them in the above section. Tompw (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose Imho "as little as possible" is achieved when there is only one image per episode. Point 3 is to use when you excess the usage. As said before as well, above "addition" is not saying, how many images should be allowed and which criteria should be used to determine which to keep. It actually just says "Not 100%" and thus allows anything between 0% and 99%. As there is no way to determine such a number without choosing at random. --SoWhy Talk 18:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. The key phrase is "the amount of copyrighted work used". Not the amount taken from each copyrighted work. Or the amount per entry in a list. It is "the amount". On no stretch of normal English usage could "one per entry" in a list of featurable size be considered "little". Please also note that the typical usage in episode lists fails the "we may permit some non-free material for critical commentary" statement in the policy since no "critical commentary" of the scene is made. Colin°Talk 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshots are not only to be used to comment them but to illustrate the articles they are used in. Images are very effective to allow people to identify episodes easily for example. And of course it can be considered little, depending on the viewpoint. Ten images per item are much, then one per item is little. You also fail to specify how many images would be allowed and how many won't be. --SoWhy Talk 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It might not be needed to say it here, but it is still a requirement for FLs as FLs require lists to follow policy and applicable guidelines. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course they do. But the policy doesn't say that, and amendments to that effect were rejected in the past. It doesn't make sense to apply special interpretations of polices to featured content. The policy says what it says, or (more to the point here) doesn't say what it doesn't say.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've retracted my opposition: consensus got established (elsewhere) to ban this sort of use all together. Can't say I agree with it, but c'est la vie--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did consensus get established?  All I've seen is a few people insisting they are Right and Supported by Policy and huge disagreement with that.  --Minderbinder 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific proposal

message: The above issue has exploded in a huge fireball over at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes. Colin°Talk 21:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't say :) I have long been uncomfortable about the extent of non-free images on television episode lists. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder if this might have lit the fuse... Tompw (talk) (review) 22:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, the author, don't think so, because the mini-battle and subsequent protection of List of Family Guy episodes happened before (only a few hours, but still) the Signpost was published this week. --Phoenix (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fireball

message: I've archived the discussions. Seems like a good time for a clean sheet of paper. Colin°Talk 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Can a list be featured if it does not use inline citations? Todd661 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The bird lists are an example (though not a good one since IMO they contain way too much unsourced text). See also List of Oz books and Narnian timeline. Generally, a short list containing a well-defined finite set of members could reference just one or two sources and so not require inline citations. For a dynamic list, I insist on inline citations for every member. Colin°Talk 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Timeline of Canadian elections for an example of a FL that doesn't use inline citations. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline Citations 

message: It seems like more and more, the "usefulness" criterion is taken as "more than a mere list of links." Few lists that are nothing but a list of links actually become featured. Any thoughts? Circeus 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a "list of links" isn't particularly useful, and thus might fail under #1a. However, a "list of links" would definately fail on #1f, becauuse it wouldn't be "annotated with information as appropriate". Given #1f, I think it's a somethign of a moot point. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redefine "usefulness" criterion? 

message: "Non-free content (fair use) images must pass the non-free content criteria."
All WP articles must do this; the criteria are additional to this. Thus, the statement may be ripe for removal. Tony 15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It was added on the day of the great fair use purge/fireball. This issue seems to have settled and the emphasis is no longer required. Colin°Talk 16:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Every article *must* follow this. (The "fair use fireball"... kind of trips off the tongue nicely.) Tompw (talk) (review) 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional? 

message: How notable does a FL have to be? Or as long as it meets all criteria it will become a FL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PGPirate (talk • contribs).
:Actually, it does not to be notable by itself. In example, a list of TV episodes, or a list of persons who have had problems with dogs could become featured, as far as I know, as long as it fulfills the criteria. -- ReyBrujo 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria demand that each list entry is notable by the requirement to link to existing WP articles. Exceptions are timelines on "a notable topic" or a finite, complete set of items on a "significant topic of study". The list of TV episodes doesn't need to link to episode-articles, as long as it is complete and the TV program isn't too obscure. The list of "persons who have had problems with dogs" is unlikely to make it :-). Colin°Talk 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notablilty of FL 

message: I am working on an article for a sports team that happened to set several records.  Currently, the article contains an embedded list of records set either by the team or by players on the team.  The main article is getting a bit long and I am thinking about splitting this list out into a stand-alone article.  If I did so, I would use the criteria "awards and school or national records won/set either by the team or by an individual on the team".  I am wondering if this criteria would be considered clear-cut enough for the list to be featured.  
Also, is there any criteria concerning how many items are in the list?  This list would have about 15–20 items.  
If you would like to view the current list, it is here.  A couple of the items there would not migrate because they would not fit the clear-cut criteria.  Thanks for your input. Johntex\talk 02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on subject matter 

message: Wikipedia:Lists has been turned into a style guideline and its guideline content criteria has been demoted to essays. WP:AfD is seeing a number of "List of <x> Americans" listed for deletion and those are flowing into WP:DRV. See, for example, List of English Americans DRV.) I believe that the lack of a single, coherent, list content guideline is a main cause of the inability of AfD to deal effectively with lists. Those of you who determine featured lists know what a Wikipedia list needs. Would you please gather up all the list content criteria scattered throughout Wikipedia and produce a list content guideline that is written in a way that it may be cited at AfD during AfD discussions about lists. Thanks. -- Jreferee   t/c 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List content guidline criteria 

message: Hello. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Quality Rating of Lists we have a discussion going on about quality standards for NRHP lists.  One of the proposals being discussed is to look at the not only at the list itself, but also at the quality of the individual NRHP/NHL articles that the list links to.
I.e. for the list to reach "Start" status, all of the linked articles must be of stub status (trans. no redlinks). For the list to reach "B" status, all of the linked articles must be of "start" status. Presumably then, the NRHP Wikiproject would look for all of the the linked articles to be "start" or better before supporting an FL nomination.
Has there ever been any discussion of something like this? Is there any Wikiprecedent for it?  -Ipoellet 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked articles as quality criterion 

message: Do we need a minimum number of items on a list to have their own articles in order to qualify for FL?  There's a push to improve the quality of List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong right now, but we fear that some of the buildings are not notable enough to have their own articles.  Will this prevent the list from achieving FL status?  What if some of the items on a list are just plain text (not red-linked, just plain text), would it prevent a list from achieving FL status?  Also, any suggestions on how to improve that list would be welcomed.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many items need to have their own articles? 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index lists - RfC 

message: I've nommed Lists of mathematics topics for removal, as it doesn't meet current standards (it provides no sources).
Can or should an exception be made in featured list criteria on sources required in topic lists? 
The Transhumanist    22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic lists 

message: Is it possible for a list to meet FLC criteria if it includes some items that are notable enough to have their own articles, and are therefore linked appropriately, but other non-notable items that are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles, and are therefore not linked? Criterion 1a1 states that a list must bring together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria, and criterion 1a3 states that a list must contain a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles. However, there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque about whether a list could meet the criteria if some items are existing articles brought together per entry criteria, and some entries are a well-defined set of items that fit together, but are not notable enough to have their own articles. One editor has opposed on the basis that a list cannot not use both 1a1 and 1a3, and can only meet 1; therefore, lists such as List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, where the tallest buildings listed are notable enough to have their own articles but lower ranked hotels on the list, which cannot by excluded, are not notable enough to have their own articles, fail to meet the criteria, as a) not all entries have articles (failing 1a1) and b) some entries have articles (failing 1a3). If this editor is correct in saying that lists must have either no linked articles or all linked articles, then many FLs, including List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon, List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of Shetland islands, List of Knight's Cross recipients, List of United Nations peacekeeping missions and List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester, do not meet the criteria; however, if a list can meet the criteria with some linked entries and some unlinked entries, then perhaps the featured list criteria should be reworded to clearly state this.  Cheers, Rai-me 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely think the criteria should be reworded so that both can apply. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be drawn some line between those two criteria. If both apply, then confusion is going to arise as to what member is listed under 1a1 and which one is under 1a3.--Crzycheetah 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would be best to reword 1a3 to state that "where some or all members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles". -- Rai-me 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.--Crzycheetah 06:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Raime's proposal too. Seems logical. --Jza84 |  Talk   13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If there is consensus to reword the criteria, does anyone else have any ideas on how it should be reworded? -- Rai-me 11:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding criteria 1a1 and 1a3 

message: :Interesting gaffe; why is there no neutral/POV criterion in lists?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at 1(d) titled "Uncontroversial", so if a list is POV, then it's controversial and fails the criteria. If you meant why there was no such criterion in the Tony's proposal, then we'll have to wait for him to answer that.--Crzycheetah 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks; I had the impression Tony was focusing only on the opening, not everything.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought Tony said that "the rest is redundant and should be removed"? Maybe I am misinterpreting him.--Crzycheetah 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Criteria missing 

message: A featured list exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and formatting. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, that it present views fairly and without bias, be appropriately linked, and form a notable topic—a featured list has the following attributes.
#Comprehensive. Where the membership of a set is known and stable, the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists, no major component of the set is omitted. 
#Well-structured. It has a concise lead section that summarizes the scope and entry criteria of the list, and prepares the reader for the greater level of detail in the subsequent sections. Where appropriate, the list has a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help). The list is easy to navigate and is annotated with information as appropriate.
#Factually accurate. Claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
#Manual of Style. It complies with the Manual of Style.
#Stable. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured list process.
#Images. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt".
*Slap me down, but I've had another go at the proposed new criteria. This time, I've put all of the universal requirements for WP's content—the "checklist" that someone mentioned—in the lead, except for the item that would be too long and cumbersome: "factually accurate". Thus, the numbered criteria are, with this exception, the unique requirements of FLs. All lists must comply with the universal requirements. I've retained the "Manual of Style" point since, like articles, it's the featured class that absolutely must follow MoS. Colin, I do believe that once the criteria are more user-friendly, people will take notice of the lead. I've been doing so, because that's where the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing lies. 
:Thus, I've stripped back the numbered criteria to a short, simple list. Tony (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks much better to me. I'll support it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised proposal (2) 

message: I think this discussion is confusing and off-putting to anyone "late" to it. What we should be doing is cracking, point by point, the contentious issues. We need a separate section where people can discuss, for example, the "owned" point, so all debate on that matter is kept together, it can be crafted and consensus to adopt or reject can emerge. At the moment, we have various variations on a theme popping up.
I have strong opinions on many of the points being raised, but have no idea where to place them. I therefore propose we create subsections, headed by a concise precis of its issue, paste into it some wording and crack on with analysing it in detail.
Maybe it's just because my brain's limited and everyone else can cope with the way this is going, but we're attempting to do a large, important and (most relevantly) complex task here, and it strikes me that the best way to do that is to simplify the admin of it as much as possible. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why a green box clearly setting out a full proposal and criterion-by-criterion comments below it are confusing. Can't you read through them? Can't you post your own "strong opinions below that? Splintering the discussion is not the way to go. That would be to make it complex. It seems to me that we're approaching a workable version; it's certainly not as confusing and complicated as the existing criteria. I'm soon to post another green box that modifies Colin's Version 3. I'm interested to see your views before that. Tony (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After I posted the 3rd proposal, there were two competing drafts and I didn't want to suggest mine superseded Tony's. It might be confusing to know which draft to suggest changes to. However, it appears that Tony likes the 3rd enough to use that as a base to work on. It is a long discussion, so if anyone feels there is an issue raised further up that is still "open", you could repeat it down here to save "late comers" having to read the whole thing. We could then consider archiving some of it. The "variations" are at the moment all quite different as we are trying to boil down the essence of the criteria and find a good way to frame the rules. As we approach consensus on that, it will make it easier to discuss the finer points of #8, or whatever. Colin°Talk 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've been around long enough to know that my brain works differently from others'. I'll post in Proposal 3. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Colin, I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "if anyone feels there is an issue raised further up that is still "open", you could repeat it down here." I feel the matter of where/how to include what you refer to as the "core stuff" (including the Ownership Policy) is still open. Should that be repeated here? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Evans, this is really not the place for your argument. I don't think anyone here has agreed with your assumption that this is an appropriate location for dealing with ownership. Please take the issue further up the chain, or it will appear to be obstructive to a task that is already challenging. Tony (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, you misunderstand and have misread my comment above.Ownership is not the only issue here,Tony. The issue here is what Colin calls the "core stuff" which includes all of the major policies. Please do not mis-quote my comment above which references all the core policies. Yes, Ownership may be a particular concern addressed in other comments, but my comment above is a direct response to Colin's reference to the much broader issue of "core stuff". I am interested in how all of the core policies are treated in this discussion, not just Ownership. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused discussion 

message: Damn, I feel like an idiot. I came here from , which was a topic at a discussion about FACs and all this time I thought that FL criteria is synonymous with FA criteria. I apologize profusely and I am really embarrassed. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, we're all of us human.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: Unfortunately I was away from Wikipedia during the discussions for the new criteria, and I'm not at all opposed to the new ones, except for including the word "colour". I've seen plenty of lists which over-use colours just to make them look pretty, and it seems a bit BEANSY to mention it in the criteria. -- Matthewedwards (talk contribs &site= count email) 22:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloured beans 

message: I notice there do not seem to be any  currently featured. Is there a reason for this or is it simply that no particular suitable candidates have been put forward? I am wondering whether or not the basic topic lists are by their (taxonomic) nature ineligible for FL. Any insight appreciated. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of basic topics 

message: Why is there no criterion for verifiability of content? Skomorokh 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing requirements 

message: Does a FL need to comply with recommendations made in MoS? If something is recommended in MOS but not obligatory, should a list be failed if one does not meet the recommendations? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of style compliance 

message: Don't understand why the criteria don't mention compliance to Wikipedia:lists, Wikipedia:stand-alone lists and other (for instance: WP:CLN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a discussion about this began today at Wikipedia talk:FLC#completely contradicting guidelines for lists. Let's begin with the Lead section. Feel free to join in. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, discussion is now archived in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 7#completely contradicting guidelines for lists. Let's begin with the Lead section —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 09:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compliance to general list-related guidelines 

message: It seems that practically all featured lists concerning TV shows don't cite their stated air or release (or in some cases filming) dates. It seems a little strange to me that a list can become "featured" despite having one or more loooong columns of info that could be made up/mistaken/whatever. Some lists, for example List of 24 episodes, provide citations for every date mentioned, but this unfortunately seems an exception rather than the rule. So what are the official requirements? Miremare 01:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have no citations for the dates, i would expect there to be a overall general source that gives these dates. For those lists with neither should not be featured imo, as using editors recollections of dates would be too error-prone.Yobmod (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in lists don't need citations? 

message: The criteria currently says for non-comprehensive lists: "...or otherwise at least all of the major items". Can people give their views as to what is needed to confirm that no major items are missing? There are a few non-comprehensive lists of this sort that get featured, but it is a little unclear on how this was judged..
I'm thinking of things like genre lists. A couple of editors have been working hard on sourcing List of cyberpunk works for example, and i can fix the formatting to be featured list quality (with more data for each entry), but don't know if this is worth doing. How will we know when it is comprehensive enough? Is there a number target we can work towards (no matter how high?). 
Slightly different would be article like List of lesbian SF. There is a almanac on this topic from 1993 that claims to be "comprehensive" (and has independant reviews saying the same), and since the 90's a number of awards have existed that cover this. Would all the books in the almanac and all the award nominees be enough to be considered to have included "all of the major items." (It would be several hundred works and i think all the notable examples of a niche intersection)?
Bringing the latter list up to FA is required for a FT, or deleting it, which is likely to be impossible. 
Specific and general comments would be of great help!Yobmod (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least I'd say all items that have an article on Wikipedia.  That would be a good starting point, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensiveness 

message: I recently posted an FLC FLC Spam, where I was informed that my article did not meet one of the seven criteria of a FL: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." I believe that this contradicts the spirit of Wikipedia:Red Link, and that encouraging writers to remove Red Links in the name of aesthetics is a bad idea. Red Link is definitely one of the things that made Wikipedia grow. What if a new user pops by and decides to write an article about Ken Sanzel or Julie Hébert, isn't that much better than someone being slightly put off because they can't stand the sight of an awful red linked word? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may mean "minimal proportion of red links" more as "try to have as many redlinked pages turned into articles as possible" rather than "red links are bad!" Admittedly, I try to avoid having redlinks in articles I work on, but I do agree with you that it might not hurt to remove it from the criteria. -- Scorpion0422 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Redlinks help give people "here is a place you can expand!" hints, yes, which is all well and good in normal editing. Featured items are meant to highlight our best work, and redlinks give the impression that the surrounding "area" (related articles and whatnot) is completely void of information; I wouldn't say that is our best work. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually avoid this problem all together by creating stubs for the redlinks myself.—Chris! ct 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that there are some lists that may have all red links listed and that is really unappealing. Example, List of tallest buildings in Baltimore over 80% of the entries are stubs created to avoid red links, which is why part of the criteria states it.--TRUCO 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria 6 - Red Links 

message: What's the minimum?  I've got four of the list items at S–series Dungeons & Dragons modules up to GA, and I'm thinking of trying to make a Good Topic.  Should it be a list or should I make a GA out of it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no hard-and-fast rule, but the unwritten minimum is ten. Exceptions are made, but I doubt this one would fly. Also, why is the title an en dash but in the article it is introduced as a hyphen? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For that type of list, the 10-item limit guideline is enforced, so it can't become a FL. I would try GA if enough content can be found for it.--TRUCO 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay; thanks! I'll work on GA with it. (as for the en-dash vs. hyphen; that was an error) -Drilnoth (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it an en dash though? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What brings the 10 element rule into effect in general? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the content of the list, if its about a list of winners of a certain award, the 10 limit rule might apply, but if its about a topic which has multiple columns which also lists a reasonable amount of prose, then it can be an exception.--TRUCO 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five item list? 

message: discussion moved from WT:FLC
Per this discussion at FAC, I think we should encourage/require nominators to integrate alt text when possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As you are now opposing based on this, I guess you are suggesting we change the criteria to mandate the use of alt text, rather than leave it to individuals to decide when is appropriate.  Could you confirm you wish to change the criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to let you know that I added some comments to the above discussion like should we give a grace period before delisted articles/lists based on this new requirment. --Kumioko (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That requirement seems to have already been added to the FA criteria. Jafeluv (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Yep it was added today--Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold your horses, who said anything about grace periods and delistings? We don't have to mass-remove FL stars just because of lack of alt text. Just like there are still FAs without or seriously lacking inline citations, and FLs whose leads still start with "This is a list of" or some other varying form of non-engaging prose, we should address these issues as we see them and not cause a huge ruckus over this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the moment you started to oppose based on missing alt text, you set the scene for delisting FLs because they don't have alt text.  In other words, you would have voted oppose on a huge number of lists that didn't have alt text where you considered it required per 5b.  I don't believe listing lists for FLRC which start "This is a list" or without alt text is causing a ruckus.  It should be used to improve existing lists up to current standards.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't WP:FL? already call for Alt text? Matthewedwards :  Chat   17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems. Apparently, since November 2006. Jafeluv (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it says, rather nebulously, "where required" or similar.  We need to get a handle on "where required" means.  Dabomb87 showed me some really informative images of my lists when images were disabled, which helps us folks who take images without captions (for instance) for granted.  I reckon it's worth a discussion.  And even if WP:FL? said we needed it, how many times has it been brought up in the past few years Matthew?!  I think we've been missing a trick.  Hence the requirement to go back and look at FLs that don't meet 5b.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:ALT, "[e]very visible image should have alt text, unless the image is used only for visual formatting or decoration." Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So 5b perhaps ought to explicitly state that the "where required" is "per MOS" or similar?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

text: And perhaps we could get a definition of what "for ... decoration" means.  After all, I thought images were supposed to be pertinent and informative, not just decorative...!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked  to take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good start.  So our 5b says "It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions and "alt" text if necessary" - we need to be much tighter on "if necessary" if our regulars are going to oppose list promotion based on "missing alt text".  Don't get me wrong, it's a fair viewpoint, but it's a sudden and dramatic change (which we've probably all been overlooking) and perhaps we should point directly to the MOS instead of interpreting it ourselves for the criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I think (unless I missed it) it would be instructive if editors are to be bold and change the criteria, that we at least get clear and discussed visibility of it.  I think we're now back to where we were after Scorpion's overhaul, with "where appropriate" or similar.  I think we don't really need to "change" the criteria, just understand better how to implement this part of 5b.  We need to be "helpful" to our editors when opposing/commenting on "needs alt text".  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until dictated otherwise, I think we should go with the guideline: alt text should be used at all times except if the image is decorative. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, seems reasonable (although I don't know what a "decorative image" would be doing in an encyclopedic article...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the requirement being added but it should not be used to delist pre-existing FLs.  — Rlevse • Talk •  10:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about that.  If it's a requirement, then it's a requirement.  Lists that no longer meet current requirements will end up at WP:FLRC.  It'd be better if people could go back to "their" FLs and add alt text to pre-empt any suggestions of delisting. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, FLs must be held to existing criteria, but adding alt text to images in an existing FL strikes me as a  task that any editor could do (since it's simply a case of "say what you see") rather than justifying on its own a leap to the nuclear option of FLRC. BencherliteTalk 11:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should consider renaming WP:Featured list removal candidates to WP:Featured list review candidates or something. I think the current feeling of FLRC is that because of the word "removal", if it's nominated, people can only vote whether to keep it or delist it, instead of actually discussing it. I know there are some lists I would like to bring up for discussion but not necessarily be delisted, but I haven't because I know that they'll get delist !votes instead of discussion about their good and bad qualities. Matthewedwards :  Chat   22:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FAR follows the binary system, but I don't know if FLRC gets enough traffic for that. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's the only negative thing I could think about it, except that a FLR doesn't necessarily have to mean only reviewing, it could incorporate both. I'm not really sure. Matthewedwards :  Chat   22:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt text 

message: I'm starting this discussion because there have been several times when opposes have been made due to red links. On February 18, 2009, the statement "and it [a featured list] has a minimal proportion of red links" was removed. Either nobody noticed, or nobody minded, because this statement was not reinstated, not even during the revised criteria discussion of a few months ago, until it was added back earlier today. Now, opinions of what constitutes a featured list have changed a lot even between February and now. Much like the alt text requirement (until recently), the red link bit seems to be something that reviewers, for the most part, have ignored. In my ten months at FLC, I have yet to see a candidate fail solely because it had "too many redlinks". Now, as for my own opinion, I don't see why redlinks should directly affect another list. I have more to say, but I'm interested in what others think. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't think that red links themselves should be a criteria for an article to fail criteria I do think that there shouldn't be a lot of them as in the article I submitted for Marine Corps Brevet Medal. In all honesty I also believe that there are too many red links on this article but since having red links asn't a show stopper I submitted it anyway and I will gladly create articles for them. Here's the rub, since the Marine Corps Brevet Medal was in line to the Medal of Honor, and the Medal of Honor recipients have been repeatedly deemed as notible on being a recipient, some could argue for and against the notibility of these recipients, especially since there is very limited documentation (at least without crossing the original research criteria) on them and although I will gladly create articles for them I already know that they will be basically stubs with infoboxes and there is a reasonably good chance someone will mark one or more of them as non notible. So I think that if the article meets the notibility and other requirements then there should be an article, even if only a stub (and I know there are mixed feelings in the community on stubs) but if there is no reference or it doesn't meet notibility requirements then maybe the red link should be eliminated. --Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please show me a featured list with majority of the items it lists as red links?  Starting the very beginning of the FL process, that is since June 2005, lists failed the criteria because of too many red links; you can always browse the failed log archive. Per WP:RED, it is encouraged to have red links for an article in Wikipedia and it lists good reasons why the red links benefit Wikipedia. As for the featured lists, we discuss the lists that are already complete and represent Wikipedia's best work. How can a list with red links be complete when you just click on the links and they take you nowhere?--Crzycheetah 20:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I would personally say that there should be some sort of limit on how many redlinks there is specifically when it pertains to the subject of the list, I'm not sure how many redlinks would be alright but I start to question the list if it's approaching 50% redlinks in a list. If you believe enough in the list (and thus the subject) to work on getting it to Feature List level then you should ensure that there is over 50% Blue Links on the subject matter. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *I agree that if it's made a rule again it should be part of the rule that unlinking something that is potentially notable enough for Wikipedia is the same as a red link. At times something may obviously not warrant it's own article and it'd be okay to leave it unlinked, but the argument "it's red" is not enough to not link it. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: **Until the part about red links was blatantly removed from the criteria, the "minimal proportion" was 1/3 of the items listed. I don't see a problem with the first two points mentioned by Dabomb. When editors remove the red links by delinking a notable subject, a reviewer at WP:FLC should notice it and inform the editor about it. As for the second point, a stub is better than a red link. There's a greater chance that newbies start editting stubs than creating non-existent pages.--Crzycheetah 23:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: ***Another thing about stubs, IP users can edit those, they cannot create articles so it opens up the subject to a larger number of editors.  MPJ Denmark  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  10:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: ****I am putting that statement beck into the crriteria per this discussion.--Crzycheetah 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *****Alright, although I expect there will be a lot of feeling out on this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that this conversation goes well beyond the Brevet Medal list I submitted but I have enough info to make a start class articles, 1 or 2 paragraphs at least and in several cases more. --Kumioko (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links