Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FLC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The closure log

Comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs), PresN (talk · contribs), and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), and other notes of pertinence. Should you wish to contact the delegates, you can use the {{@FLC}} ping facility.

FLC

FLRC
  • Kept
    • None
  • Delisted
    • None
  • FLRCs of special note
    • None

It's that time again...

Everyone, please be aware that my busy season in real life is just about here, meaning that I won't have time to do much of anything FLC-related over the next few months, other than pick TFLs (which I promise will be done as usual). Given that we had our most December promotions in seven years, and are on pace for a similar result this month, there's more than enough editing talent in this process to keep things running smoothly for a while. Nominations and reviewers alike, keep up the great work and I'll be back full-time in the spring, although I hope to sneak in a closure or two here and there. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We'll keep the lights on around here, and hopefully TRM and I can keep the promotions pipeline running as smoothly as it's been the last couple of months. Best of luck! --PresN 04:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, should be no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

I happened to notice this village pump thread of interest to FLC. Apparently, an FL has been split into two separate lists, both of which currently have the FL star, and the list linked to on the main FL page is now a disambiguation link. @AlexTheWhovian: you asked for a greater audience than WT:FL would have. I think this page would fit the bill, and we'll need to figure out how to handle this in any case. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; this talk page does appear to be more active. I would be interested in hearing from the wider community on their opinion on this. -- AlexTW 04:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Agh, as always, we can never come up with a guidline for these types of splits because each one is so different. Especially when, like this case, the original FLC was so long ago. It was promoted in December 2007, and looked like this. Besides the fact that it was not, uh, great, and the fact that the style is pretty different from List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), note that it, obviously, covered only 3 seasons of New Who (2005-07), and 26 seasons + a movie of Who Classic. I feel that this split was different than the Simpsons split that recently came up- that one, at its core, was just the list getting longer every year until it had to get chopped into two pages for size reasons, with a 20 year cutoff because round numbers are fun. This was a split seemingly made mostly because of the obvious gap and change between the two Who versions, with size as a secondary concern. When you combine that with how almost all of the 2005+ list has never been reviewed, in form or content, I'm inclined to give the 1963-89 list the star only. I would also strongly recommend a review of the 1963-89 list as well (informally or formally), due to the large changes in the decade since it was promoted; this is a little unfair, as pretty much every 2007 FL should get that scrutiny, but it doesn't have to be an FLRC. --PresN 05:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Pres N, some form of review for the Classic Who list, and a new FLC needed for the New Who one. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This sounds like a sensible proposal. To the wider point I agree that many of the lists promoted a decade ago, that have seen very little activity since, don't stack up against the current FLC standards. A review of all of these lists is required. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
That strikes me as the correct outcome too. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Do you have an opinion one way or another? Unless you're opposed I'll sort these two lists out tomorrow, and I plan to get working on a list of what 2007 or earlier FLs are still extant without a review. We only had 517 FLs as of the end of 2007 (May 2005-Dec 2007), and a quick scan with my link highlighting script shows what looks like ~350 lists are still Featured from that (though over half have been renamed, since). --PresN 04:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Airline destination lists

Per this, we lost two FLs today, and a clearly strong direction on any future aircraft destination lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For further discussion and interesting discourse, please contact Beeblebrox. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:ANI, they have recieved a stay of execution: the discussion may have agreed that all such lists must go, but the axe got stopped halfway through the category because objections were raised that they should release their mortal coil through AfD, not summary execution. So, for now they're still on the FL list, until the bueracracy is untangled. Speaking for myself, I find the whole back and forth a bit odd- I don't think Beeblebrox should have started deleting articles, but it's not because I think AfD is the holy arbiter of deletion discussion vs. anywhere else, but because if you're going to go deleting 400+ articles, it needs at least an RfC notification, not just a village pump discussion among those who happen to pay attention to that page. I have no strong opinions other than that. --PresN 04:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Uncle Tupelo discography

All of the issues have been discussed and this thread is not going anywhere productive. If there is a specific proposal to update closing procedures, please start a new section. Any possible errors can be posted here with a friendly notification for the delegates. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear FL directors, there is a FL nomination that was promoted 11 years ago - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Uncle Tupelo discography. The issue right now is that this page doesn't exist anymore, it was merged with the main page. Someone removed that page from WP:FL without demoting it first, also this page doesn't appear at WP:FFL either. What procedural steps have to be done to resolve this issue? Just put it at WP:FFL?--Cheetah (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Can someone offer an idea what to do here?--Cheetah (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I vote for making an FLRC with the aim of speedily delisting the page, just for the sake of bookkeeping. When I go through FLC tomorrow, I can close the FLRC and add the list to FFL if one is made. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm less interested in the bookkeeping, myself; I treat merges like that as a de facto delisting and would just add it to FFL directly- technically "removing the link from WP:FL" is that actual delisting, and both adding a link to FFL and having an FLRC is just record keeping without any weight beyond it, so I don't see the point. If Giants wants an FLRC page to link, though, that's also fine, it doesn't hurt anything. --PresN 01:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
PresN, basically, you're not following the proper procedure of demoting a featured list. It's very strange and disappointing to hear from a FL director delegate. Today after reading your comment, I went over many FLs and noticed two lists that were demoted via FLRC nomination by you, but never added to the WP:FFL; also, there are three FLs that you added to the WP:FFL without nominating them in the removal process. User:Giants2008 and User:The Rambling Man, do you guys approve PresN's actions? Just curious...--Cheetah (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
From experience, it's easy to forget to update FFL if it's not on one's mind, since that page isn't often used and our biggest concern is keeping the FL count up to date. These certainly aren't issues that I'd want delegate status removed over, if that's what you were thinking. Better to just add the missing lists to FFL and improve our procedures going forward. Anyway, I'm off to review FLC now and will close the Tupelo FLRC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not what I was thinking. I just don't want all three of you guys to ignore basic procedures. More concerning to me was to see those 3 lists added to the FFL (here) without community consensus.--Cheetah (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you and I have a fundamental disconnect between what we think the purpose of the FL and FFL list pages is. I see them as describing reality, not prescribing reality. If a list is merged into a parent article through whatever legitimate process it happens, then in my mind it has ceased to be a featured list just as it has ceased to be a list at all. As such, it should be removed from the FL page and added to the FFL page. That is to say, to me the Featured List process is one of reviewing and starring great lists, and it does not confer upon those lists any additional weight (e.g. featured lists should not be considered any more difficult to merge than a well-written non-featured list- the star is a marker of quality, not a sign that all merge discussions must be overseen by FLRC).
I see the papertrail benefit of making an FLRC for such an ex-list anyway, but to me that's a small benefit that is outweighed by the bureaucratic effort it adds- namely that I don't want reviewers at FLC spending any time that they would have spent reviewing an FLC instead 2nd-reviewing a completed merge. FLC reviewers are spread thin as it is; they can't also be the content guardians for 3000+ lists just in the off case we want to overrule local consensus. And if FLRCs are going to be opened by you and then immediately closed by Giants just so there is an easy page to point to for why a specific list got demoted after it stopped existing... well, if that's what y'all want to do then I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I personally don't see much benefit, as I wouldn't think people would expect a merged list to stay listed to FL.
All that aside, if I demoted lists at FLRC and forgot to add them to FFL, that was a clear error on my part and I'll fix that if you let me know which ones. --PresN 01:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a cycle: a list gets nominated for a promotion, then promoted, then nominated for a demotion, then demoted. If we start removing lists from FL without a nomination of demoting, what keeps us from just adding lists we like to FL without nominating? Bureaucracy is needed to keep this cycle flowing. We vote for directors/delegates who execute this bureaucracy. As for the lists that you forgot to add, don't worry, it's easier for me to add than to let you know.--Cheetah (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure you felt that rudeness was deserved for some reason. You said something I found interesting, though- you seem to see FL as a bureaucracy, with the director/delegates elected by editors to just keep the wheels turning. My understanding, however, was that no one elected Giants, but that they were appointed by the other organizers in 2009. Elections weren't a thing after that until Giants decided to set one up in 2013, which got us SchroCat and Crisco 1942; I actually ran in that election and lost. Then I got picked (by Schro/Giants/Crisco) in 2014 to be a delegate, and approved via RfC. We've had a couple elections since then; I was the one who set up both of them in the hopes of getting people to self-nominate moreso than to get people to vote, which means of the 3 of us only TRM has actually been voted in. Additionally, the FL instructions in whatever form they took have always stated words to the following: "These steps are not, strictly, required: the only thing that determines whether a list is an FL is whether it was added to or removed from WP:FL by the Featured list directors or their delegates. The instructions on this page are for the convenience of other editors, by creating a stable and transparent process." You'll note that this line actually answers your question of "what keeps us from just adding lists we like to FL without nominating?".
All that history aside, the FL system, like so much of wikipedia, is something that runs on inertia and volunteerism moreso than written rules; that the director/delegates were officially the sole decisionmakers in 2009 doesn't mean that that's how it's seen today. So I'm curious as to Giants2008's opinion, if they have one. --PresN 04:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Giants had 8 support votes in 2009, that's how he became a FLRC delegate. Per that RfC you mentioned, you were voted in, as well, so all three of you were voted in. As for the instructions, good thing Wkipedia keeps page history, and I am not surprised now to see that you were the one who added that bit to the instructions page here in December 2015, my guess is you didn't ask community. It wasn't always there, it's just been there for less than three years.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

...that's a rewording of a sentence being moved from line 150 in that edit. A sentence that was present in every revision going back to the prior instructions when they were first written in 2008.
You know what? I think I'm done with this discussion. I agree with TRM below, I'm not sure what this is trying to prove- I guess you think I'm a rogue or bad delegate because I removed merged lists from FL without an FLRC? All I can tell is that every time I say an opinion you disagree with you get ruder, so I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. --PresN 12:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this thread is trying to prove or provide, if anything. My TL;dr summary is "some lists didn't quite get shuffled into the right pages quite correctly". I'm not sure any of the three of us have "ignored basic procedure" unless it was just a better way of doing something. This appears to be a storm in a teacup and I suggest we all move on and do something to benefit Wikipedia, e.g. write a decent list! I am!! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source review question

I'm about to start drafting an RfC for a featured quality source review process that would be a prerequisite for a FAC nomination. (See WT:FAC for the background and some discussion of the just-completed workshop.) It's obviously of interest to FAC, but it may interest FLC regulars too, since FLC could also choose to require a source review prior to a nomination being permitted at FLC. I'd like to understand what the current source review policy is here, so I can state it correctly in the RfC. FAC requires every successful nomination to have an explicit source review. Is there something similar here at FLC? That is, is it possible for a nomination to pass with no reviewers commenting on sources, or would the coordinators insist on such a review before promoting? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: FLC, since January 2016, has required every nomination to receive a source review prior to being promoted. We haven't been explicit about what a source review must entail, but practically it must: include spot checks for if the sources cover what they claim to (and plagiarism, though that's nowhere near the concern here it is at FAC), and include a scan of clear and consistent citation formatting. FLCs that are in need of a source review are listed in the box at the top of WP:FLC; that said, I'd say the majority of nominations get their source review from the closing delegate rather than from another reviewer. Unlike FAC, we don't hold off on closing a nomination for lack of a source review, we just do it ourselves (as most citations are for clear facts in tables here, it's a much faster process than at FAC). --PresN 03:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. I'll link to this conversation from the RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The draft RfC is here, and some discussion is here; I don't know if FLC regulars will be interested in adopting FSR as a prerequisite, as the RfC proposes for FAC, but I wanted to make sure FLC editors are aware of the RfC. Please comment there or here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note to any FAC wanderers: after reading the RfC, I wanted to add that the FLC source reviews typically don't include the FAC concern of using "high quality" sources, beyond that they are RSs; instead, whether a list is based on the "right" sources and does not exclude required sources is generally part of the standard reviews instead. --PresN 14:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to see how this works at FAC before supporting the implementation of a similar process here, and have some thoughts on the practicality of it for FAC that I'll give at the RFC when I have a chance. However, while this is here, I'd like to suggest that any watchers of this page who want to help out FLC do a source review or two in their spare time. It's not healthy for the FL process when two of us are doing the vast majority of the source reviewing. If something ever happened to myself or Pres, I don't know how the source reviewing would get done. Please, offer us some help if you can. Even if you can't check everything, a review of the reliability or formatting of the sources would be very helpful for us. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=864711920"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FLC
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA