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.

  • FLCs of special note
    • We now have many lists in need of more attention. See here for the oldest ones. Please do what you can to contribute to these nominations!

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

@WP:FLC director and delegates: -Will it be okay if I place a neutrally worded notification on the noticeboards of WP:India and WP:Politics to inform more people about the List of Presidents of India FLC (since I am new )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 10:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Asking neutrally for a review anywhere seems perfectly reasonable to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. --PresN 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
As long as the wording is neutral, I have no issue with it either. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything else which can be done to somehow get people to review the nominations, or is such a stagnation usual for a FLC, I had anticipated a lot more of involvement since this such a important topic — comment added by Force Radical (talkcontribs) 06:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Your FLC has garnered a few supports, which means it's in better shape than many other FLCs after a month. Sadly, we only have so many reviewers to go around, and it's not uncommon for FLCs to last a couple of months. If you want to do a couple of reviews yourself, that would be the best thing you could do to help move things along. Fewer active FLCs means a greater chance that a reviewer will choose to look at your list. Also, editors will sometimes review articles from those who have given them reviews elsewhere, which is an added benefit. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

James Bond films

Hi everyone! It's been a long time since I've been around these parts and I didn't want to rock the boat by making a misplaced nomination.

List of James Bond films was originally promoted in 2011, and nominated for FLR review at the beginning of this year. This was the revision at the time it passed.

It has now undergone another series of edits that has changed the format of the page again. I don't edit Wikipedia much any more, and I certainly am not here at FLC enough (although I do lurk occasionally) to know whether it is still up to scratch with the criteria. I don't even know if the criteria has changed since my time. Perhaps someone more active could take a look and decide if it needs another review?

Keep up the good work! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Great to see you Matthew! This list looks to have had plot summaries added since the FLRC, among other changes. The primary contributor is still active and contributing to the list. @SchroCat: are you satisfied with the state of the list? If so, that would be good enough for me to say that it still merits the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who did some of the reworking since January as it was in a rather poor state. The split by decades, for example, was not great and was raised on the talk page as being a problem. Pages are dynamic and are always open to change, and this, as it stands, would probably pass an FLC as it stands (give or take a copyright edit or two). Regards and happy new year to you both. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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