[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured lists/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Notifications

Talk:Linkin Park discography#Split could be relevant to the FL status of the list. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor has noticed that the sorting at Portal:Television/Featured content#Featured lists is very poor when the page is updated by the bot (example revision). Many of the "List of Foo" articles are listed together as "List of...", while others are sorted as "Foo". The bot is coded to use each page's DEFAULTSORT. About 1600 featured lists either have no DEFAULTSORT or set it to "List of Foo".

I see three possible ways round this:

  • Recode the bot to sort by PAGENAME, not by DEFAULTSORT, when sorting featured lists. This would need some work by the bot owner, JLaTondre (talk · contribs) [ping!]. This loses flexibility, but the output would at least be consistent and easy to understand.
  • Recode the bot to use the sort key in Category:Featured lists rather than the DEFAULTSORT, and tweak the {{Featured list}} template to allow that category sort key to be set - either to PAGENAME, or to "PAGENAME with 'List of' moved to the end", or to a string passed in as a new parameter for the exceptional cases.
  • Keep the bot as it is, and update about 1600 featured lists to set the DEFAULTSORT to "Foo, List of". This could change the sorting of these lists in other categories, of course.

Comments, ideas? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles

FYI
 – Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Request for comment on stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles

--Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the three proposals in this RfC involves creating a separate "Good Lists" rating and process independent of the GA process. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

How would Good List affect the criteria of a Featured List? George Ho (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Film accolades lists and Awards received by actors and filmmakers

I never noticed it before but it looks like all "Film accolades list" articles don't have sections, just one long table, while all "Awards received by actors and filmmakers" list articles are divided by sections (for each award association). Why the big difference between the two? Musdan77 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Mainly local consensus- people tend to format lists like prior FLs, so if you make a new format that reviewers find acceptable future lists then tend to follow it. Also, person-awards lists are more likely to have multiple awards from the same awarding body, while film-awards lists generally don't unless they got nominated for multiple categories, so if you didn't stick it in one table you'd end up with a bunch of single-row table sections. --PresN 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Statistics section

Hi. I was looking around for statistics on the number and frequency of feature lists. Does such a sub-page exist or has there ever been consideration given to producing this? My search showed me a previously unanswered request for this on this talk page:

Has there ever been consideration given to producing a statistics page like WP:FAS and WP:GAS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@JakobSteenberg: As far as I can tell, no such page exists; I'd be willing to explore creating one, though, even if only for my own interest- it would certainly be easier to maintain than the TFL statistics page, which seems to have died another ignoble death. I'll play around with making one this week, I think. --PresN 18:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Thanks for the reply. I am sure that this will be of interest to more people than just you and me. If you manage to get one up and running please ping me and consider if the number and frequency could be added to WP:FAS and/or WP:GAS. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@JakobSteenberg: I've gotten a sample up at User:PresN/FLS starting at the beginning of 2016; does that look like what you were wanting? (Asking before I dive back for the prior 11 years of data) --PresN 02:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: YES! This is exactly what I was looking for initially. It is very good and in the same style as WP:GAS and WP:FAS. Nice work! About the 11 year data backlog. I might remember wrong, but wasn´t feature list a new class created perhaps two, maybe three, years ago? Again, nice (and very fast) work. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@JakobSteenberg: nope, May 19, 2005. First one was List of North American birds on June 1, 2005, which is now located at List of birds of Canada and the United States (there's some oddness with the page history), and is still an FL, interestingly. --PresN 21:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@JakobSteenberg: and @FLC director and delegates: Okay, the Wikipedia:Featured list statistics page is now live, with color-coded data stretching back to the beginning of the FL project. Interesting to note is that 2007-09 saw a truly absurd number of promotions, which have sadly declined since. --PresN 02:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan, which is today's featured list, has been nominated for deletion. I wish we could postpone the discussion so that people aren't immediately seeing a giant red banner as soon as they click on the list from the Main page, as this doesn't really make Wikipedia look reliable. I doubt that's possible, but I invite page watchers to participate in the AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Lists of birds of Canada and the United States

I see that List of birds of Canada and the United States was recently demoted from FL status. The article content was split between two preexisting articles, List of birds of Canada and List of birds of the United States, with the old article renamed Lists of birds of Canada and the United States and now serving as a redirect. As best I can tell, none of these three articles have a link to the original FLC discussion nor the FL removal candidate discussion, which is confusing. AmericanLemming (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost

The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may be of interest to Featured List writers and reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the editorial board for the next issue.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice


    — The Transhumanist    13:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in Featured lists.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed as soon as possible.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; unfortunately, in this case, the error is a little vague. I'm going to guess, though, that the problem is in the empty table at the very top, which says {| class="wikitable sortable"|} – i.e., the empty table without a valid close table tag, since Help:Table says that |} only counts if it's on a separate line. Removing that line would probably solve the problem, and whether it's solved can be verified, after saving, by clicking the "Page information" link in the sidebar, scrolling down to the end of the information page, and seeing whether there is still a ==Lint errors== section showing.


This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. I know this table looks intimidating, but the second column gives you a hint about what to look for (for example, cite means something related to ref tags; spans are usually hidden in infobox programming). The highlighting for the first link indicates that the first problem for that list is in the the text {{sort|''The New Space Opera #1|''[[The New Space Opera]]''}} ([[HarperCollins|Eos]]). The error code is about a span tag, which usually means something about character formatting or something about multiple paragraphs (which should be in div tags, not span tags). Looking at it, the wikitext contains three pairs of italics, which produces incorrect formatting: the title of the work is not italicized, but the publisher's imprint is. This is wrong now, and should be fixed, and fixing it will almost certainly fix the lint error. (The lint error probably wants the italics moved outside of the sort template as well, but it will probably display normally even if the italics marks stay inside the template. It'll just be technically wrong in the HTML.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Novelette?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86694758 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Novelette?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86694759 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation_episodes?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79066052 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Degrassi:_The_Next_Generation_(season_3)"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Young_Musician?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=95179663 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"name":"Template:Sortname"}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_discography?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91781753 {"name":"cite","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eve_(2003_TV_series)_episodes?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=71612532 {"name":"cite","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayreuth_canon?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79001848 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_art_in_the_City_of_Westminster?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91414702 {"name":"span","templateInfo":{"multiPartTemplateBlock":true}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=47864611 {"name":"span"}

Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, such as the first one, it's best to try to fix them all at once.

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter, or you can ping me. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Knocked all these out except for: List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes (can't see a difference, and it also seems to be coming from a transcluded list?) and List of public art in the City of Westminster (can't see a difference, and it's also overrun the template limit and needs to be broken up). --PresN 15:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of awardee lists

An RfC is being held about the implications of WP:SELFPUB, WP:DUE, and other policies for whether lists of awardees may be included in awards articles. Since there are many Featured Lists on awards that include lists of the awardees, I thought this community could provide some guidance. Feedback would be appreciated. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2018

Remove Random featured list at the left because it have in the {{FLpages}} Nhatminh01 (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Note: I agree, but there must be some reason. lets wait to get second opinion. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the request, and I agree that it could be there for a reason. Pinging the Featured List director and delegates Giants2008, PresN, The Rambling Man. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The edit looks fine to me. The link appears in the FL tools, as the user who requested the change said, and it didn't really need to be featured in the summary anyway. Both WP:FA and WP:FP handle their random page links in a similar way, so the edit helps make the FL page consistent with the other processes in that regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nhatminh01 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

So far, it's been rare enough (and every list different enough) that we've been taking it on a case-by-case basis. I presume you're talking about the List of The Simpsons guest stars / List of The Simpsons guest stars (season 1-20) split? I see that when promoted, it was seasons 1-23+movie, meaning that the current 21+ list has 3 seasons copied from the reviewed list and 6 not. The 12 paragraphs of prose are identical between the two. Frankly, I'd be willing to let both lists keep the star in this case. That said, I note that in both lists there are rows that are unreferenced, and that the prose ends with a "as of 2014" sentence even though the lead goes through 2018- these need to get cleaned up, or else both lists are potentials for being demoted. --PresN 02:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Question on template attached to some lists

I've noticed that some lists on this page have the template {{FL/BeenOnMainPage}} attached to them. While it seems to ostensibly denote those that have been featured on the Main Page, more recent examples of such lists don't seem to have the template attached to them at all. Just out of curiosity, what purpose, if any, does this template then serve? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear- all it does is add an html tag to it; presumably for use by a bot? I just checked, and none have been added since at least March 2014, and scanning the edit comments the last I actually see are from 2012. And those were manual, so almost certainly missed stuff. I beleive that, whatever bot used this back in the day, nothing is using it now, and all of those tags should be removed. @Giants2008: - you do TFL scheduling; do you do anything with this template? --PresN 17:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't do anything with it. It could potentially be more useful in a separate list of lists that have never appeared on TFL, but truth be told this page and article talk pages usually are sufficient for when I need to know if a list has already run. WP:FA also has these templates, though, so if a bot could make updates I wouldn't object to keeping them. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on content of awardee lists

There's an RfC going on at Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology#RfC on list format on whether lists of awardees should be in a table or bulleted list format, and whether they should contain photographs and other supplementary columns. This is an outgrowth of the previous RfC on whether awardee lists should be included at all. Again, since there are many Featured Lists on awards that include lists of the awardees, I thought this community could provide some guidance. Feedback would be appreciated! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong push to ban these kinds of articles from using tables or including photographs. Feedback on this proposal would be appreciated. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Featured lists listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Featured lists. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Legacypac (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

Missing movies =Kanavan,Bhakthath thirudan,Arasa kattalai,Maduraiyai Meeta sundarapandiyan 69.122.18.176 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Those don't appear to be featured lists – Þjarkur (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

False tagging

A new list was created today, IV of Spades discography, with the featured list page top template included in the first edit. I imagine false tagging is an issue you're already aware of, but I thought I'd bring this to your attention. The same user pulled the same move on Ben&Ben discography. Kingsif (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Have just done a bit of cleanup on a handful of articles, adding the {{featured list}} star where it was missing and removing it where it wasn't valid. Found these two FLs which have since been merged and are now redirects:

The talk pages still categorise them as FLs. Not sure what the correct protocol is for these so leaving them here. PC78 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither of these lists are listed here at WP:FL (it appears they were both pulled soon after the lists were merged), and both are present at WP:FFL, so I think we can go ahead and remove the talk page templates. I'll handle it. --PresN 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Muddy Waters discography

Giants2008 PresN The Rambling Man Ojorojo The bot never went through on Muddy Waters discography. It was closed as promoted on the 24th but as of late Oct 1 it still doesn't have the star, it's not listed on the FL log for Sept, nor on WP:FL2019 or the featured portal. Just wanted to let you all know. – zmbro (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Weird; the bot did run because it updated the talk page status and removed the nomination from FLC, but didn't do the rest of it... I'll clean it up. Thanks for letting us know! --PresN 01:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem! :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the article is now listed everywhere that it should be. Please post back here if you see any similar problems in the future. On rare occasions the bot will fail to fully process a nom for whatever reason, leading to situations like this. And Pres, thanks for taking care of this. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I just saw List of Colorado Rockies first-round draft picks is a featured list. But it would appear it isn't being maintained, since it stops after 2016. Can it still be a featured list if it gets updated? Diana2k (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Diana2k: Featured Lists need to be kept updated; if they aren't they can be taken to WP:FLRC to be delisted; in this case, though, since it's just 3 rows an minor lead updates, it might be faster to just update the list. --PresN 14:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Diana2k (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Anime episodes

I noticed there're many FAs far from being 'feautred' in anime list episodes. Bleach season lists, for example, seems very outdated and not FA at all and they were removed even from Indonesian Wiki. 62.98.94.76 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Table captions

I thought it would be useful to draw your attention to the discussion and conclusion of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility #RfC on table captions. We've previously accepted the lack of a caption for a table where the table was placed immediately below a heading that would duplicate the caption. However, the RfC rejects that now that we have a template {{sronly}} that can encapsulate text that we wish to be rendered by a 'screen reader only'.

It is probably best to encourage editors to comply with the requirement for data tables to have captions for now, but eventually, it ought to be a requirement for Featured Lists. --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor style edit

I noticed that the listing for Community (under Awards and nominations received by television series), which was recently promoted, is not italicized like the other titles, which stands out on a page that represents the best of Wikipedia. I know this is a minor edit, but I'm not sure if I should edit this page as a normal Wikipedia editor. Can I fix that, or when possible, could someone with the proper authority see to that? Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Fixed; yes, the page is editable by "normal" (well, autoconfirmed) users, and styling fixes are appreciated (though we discourage adding/removing lists even when correct as it makes it hard for use to keep track of things). --PresN 21:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on standardizing shortened reference column titles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists § RfC: Standardizing shortened reference column titles. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that the quality of many featured lists tends to decline over the years after promotion. While the nominating editor will often "look over" their articles by reverting unhelpful edits, once they leave the project their work falls into disarray. A few years of IPs and newcomers adding poor sources and removing random things takes its toll. I wonder if adding pending changes protection to all FLs upon promotion could ensure that they maintain their quality. Just an idea. ~ HAL333 17:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

As per the linked Wikipedia:Pending changes, they're meant to prevent vandalism, not as a pre-emptive measure against well-meaning but low-quality edits. That's actually specifically contraindicated, and I think that getting blanket PC tags on FLs (and FAs, presumably, for the same reasons?) would be a hard sell, and need a wider review to change the rules. In general, though, just going off of what we see at FLRC, it seems like the bigger problem with lists is that they stop getting updated, or that they were deficient in what would be expected now- rarely does it seem that the solution is to revert everything back to the FLC and then add in new rows to a table. --PresN 03:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it might be too extreme and sweeping in its extent. ~ HAL333 17:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Please change 1957 chemistry nobel laureate 'The Lord Todd' to his actual name 'Alexander R. Todd'. Wikiorlife (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiorlife: There is no mention of any Todd on this page. If you mean in the List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry list, you should say so there. --PresN 23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is adding infobox to the featured list article consider not an improvement? I'm talking about filmography/videography/discography featured list article, is it handle differently from awards and nominations featured list article? Because in awards and nominations featured list article, there's {{{infobox awards list}}}, however when I added {{{infobox filmography list}}} to filmography/videography/discography featured list article, it's either reverted with some summary notes that only the reverter understand or removed as not an improvement. Btw, I will not provide which awards and nominations featured list article for reference, because I don't want to see it removed as it's useful information (of course I know, wikipedia is not so and so). — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: The Featured List project is not the place to hash out content disputes within individual articles. We don't have some sort of authority over the format of a list, only whether or not it is Featured. If you feel that a list is not meeting the FL standards you cannominate it to be removed as an FL; but other than that you'll need to discuss individual list at that list or wherever the consensus was made, possibly WP:FILM. --PresN 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Sorry about that, because 1-2 editor reverted "with not inline with other FL" in summary notes hence I thought the standard was set by this project. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 17:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Indents?

Why are the lists indented like a paragraph? (First line indented) Terminator21738 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Terminator21738: Can you elaborate? Nothing on this page appears to be indented to me, unless I'm missing something. --PresN 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: For example, under Arts, "Art and Architecture" is indented, but "Media", "Music", and "Opera and Theatre" are not. Under Engineering and Technology, "Computing" is indented, but "Engineering and Technology" and "Transport" are not. Terminator21738 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Terminator21738: I just pulled the page up in Firefox, Chrome, Edge, and Safari on an iphone, and nothing was indented, all of the boxes were aligned down the left. What browser are you using? --PresN 22:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: I'm using Safari on Mac. It's Big Sur. Terminator21738 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Terminator21738: Not seeing it on safari either (Catalina). I don't actually see how it could even happen- each box is its own 'collapse' template, which makes a 2-row table (header and content), and each box is created the exact same way with different text content. There's nothing distinct about the "first" one in each section other than being the first listed that could let it be treated differently than the others. So, I can't really fix it, I'd need someone who can actually reproduce the problem to do it. --PresN 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Uh, I uploaded a picture to show what I'm seeing. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Indented_Infobox.png This is what I mean by indented Terminator21738 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Rhondda Cynon Taf

I missed this going through FLC. But seriously, three items? THREE? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, missed this one too. I can see the argument that it's part of a series of lists (Grade I listed buildings in Welsh counties) but I'm surprised that no one in the FLC brought up the length at all. I guess prior to an FLRC- are these kind of "short lists as part of a series of generally longer lists" simply ineligible for FL without being combined? I've seen us make exceptions before in similar scenarios, but usually for like 9 items or 6 with a bunch of text, not 3. --PresN 14:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Entries in Astronomy section

The section contains spaceflight lists that have little or nothing to do with astronomy, not even with the parent "Physics and astronomy". I think these should be put under "engineering and technology". Even "transport" would be a better match for List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches for example. Alternatively, the parent category could be named "Physics and space" or something like that, and then the spaceflight lists can get their own spaceflight subsection. --mfb (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

mfb "Physics and space" is fine by me. Feel free to be bold and change it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Went ahead and did this, though differently- "Physics and space" or "Physics and spaceflight" didn't make a lot of sense (honestly, neither did "Physics and astronomy", so I ended up moving physics in with chemistry ("Chemistry and mineralogy" -> "Chemistry and physics") and renaming/rearranging the space section to "Astronomy and spaceflight". It's still a little awkward as "spaceflight" is there to be with the 'space-y' things but doesn't really fit under "Natural sciences", but no categorization scheme is going to be perfect given ~3700 very disparate lists. --PresN 13:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re possibly creating a Good List criteria

Please be advised there of a discussion at WT GA: Lists and GAN. Any advice, suggestions or comments are welcome. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Color/ranking templates(?) usage in FL tables

An editor removed the color/ranking templates as seen in this table (I don't remember what the correct term for them is) from the "Placement" column today, stating they aren't needed because other FLs don't use them as the reason. During the article's FLC review however, their usage was not cited as being an issue or inappropriate, so I'd like to know if this has changed or if it is in any way in violation of MOS color guidelines or something. While there is a standardized format for how certain lists/tables are done in general, to the best of my knowledge there's nothing that says every single FL has to be pattered exactly after others right? Unless there was some discussion somewhere I should be aware of that covers this? And to be clear, if they shouldn't be used, that's no problem with me. I'm just trying to understand how/when that was decided as I go forward. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: FL does not police article content/styling, it just deals with them during FLC/FLRC, and we don't enforce consistent styling between FLs for its own sake. That said, the only guidance on colors we have is that they can't be the only way information is conveyed, which does not appear to be the case here. If there's a local guidance that you shouldn't put colors for listicles since it's not an "award" that's one thing, but it's nothing to do with FL. You'll have to take it up with that editor/talk page. --PresN 12:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: I hadn't come across any pre-existing discussions about not using colors in listicles (I checked related MOS+talk pages for lists/color usage etc. but saw nothing applicable) hence my asking here, since FLC reviewers are 1) generally more exposed to things of this nature given how many featured articles/lists y'all go through on the regular, and 2) imo pretty knowledgeable on what would be acceptable or not in each case. Thank you for replying though, I'll reach out the the particular editor. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking of splitting List of administrators and deputy administrators of NASA, which is currently a featured list, into separate lists for the two positions. I merged them many years ago before putting the list through this process way back in 2008. See Talk:List_of_administrators_and_deputy_administrators_of_NASA#Proposal_to_split_this_list if you want to discuss this. What happens if I split it - do both new articles become featured lists, or does one or both of them need to go back through this process? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: So, the answer is "it's different every time", because it depends on the reason for the split and how much the content has drifted from what was originally reviewed. In this case, the split isn't because of pure length (e.g. you're not splitting into (A-M) / (N-Z) lists for technical reasons) but due to content reasons, and it's been 13 years; while the content hasn't changed that much, it has changed. My opinion (which may differ from the other coordinators) is that the primary focus of the list is the administrators, so what you're proposing to do is to pull out and make a new list focused on the deputy admins; in fact, pretty much none of the text is about the deputies right now (it doesn't even define what they do), so almost all of the text in the new list would be new if it's of an appreciable length. So, while reducing the scope and renaming this list to just "List of administrators of NASA" doesn't mean it would lose its star, the new "List of deputy administrators of NASA" would not inherit the star and would need to go through FLC. --PresN 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Interesting, thanks! Would be happy if others also think that this is the case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and split the list. Input would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Can you have a look to the article's peer review? It's existed for 5 months but no reply has been given Dr Salvus 19:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone do so, please? I've been waiting for a reply for 5 months. Dr Salvus 14:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Expectations for lists of works?

A while ago I started the Richard Brautigan bibliography. Wondering what would be involved with bringing it to FL. Having a better lead is obvious, but beyond that I'm having trouble determining what expectations are. Perhaps the most similar bibliography FL is List of Maya Angelou works, which doesn't look all that involved but leaves me with questions. Here's a big one: when is a source expected? The Maya Angelou list is inconsistent with its sourcing, making me wonder what exactly is being sourced. Suggestions? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The Maya Angelou list has "Unless otherwise stated, the items in this list are from Gillespie et al, pp. 186–191", meaning that every item is theoretically cited; that said, the list was promoted back in 2012, and I don't know that it's the best example. The most recent FL bibliography I know of is John Neal bibliography (September 2021), and you can immediately see the difference- every work is explicitly cited, not implicitly; the table means that you can more easily see trends over time or sort by different things, and most importantly you get a Notes column that provides context and detail, making the list more than a bare listing of titles. I'd look to that as an example to follow more than the Maya Angelou list. --PresN 22:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Lack of information

Hi there. In my opinion lack of information shouldn't impact to a review if the information isn't available. Does someone agree with me? Dr Salvus 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Dr Salvus: If any particular information is not available in relevant sources, we reviewers don't usually expect nominators to go and find it, because it'll be WP:OR. However, if the information is available (any reviewer has pointed out a source) but yet not added, then I'm afraid, it could be an issue. Can we get a bit more detail as to which list/review are we specifically talking about here? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Kavyansh.Singh, the example is List of Coppa Italia finals. It hasn't got any information related to attendance of many finals. The information isn't available (although many reviewers of previous nominations don't believe so) as the Coppa Italia lacked of importance prior the 1980s Dr Salvus 11:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

New section for awards

Are there any guidelines for when a group of FLs should be reorganized under a new subheading? Personally, I've noticed that there are probably enough Primetime Emmy articles to move them to their own section, but I wasn't able to find any firm guidance from a quick search of the talk archives. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: There's no rules, so it's just whenever a delegate/director feels there's enough to break out. I usually go with 5+, but not always. Looks like it would make more sense to make the Emmys a section with multiple sublists, since the primetime creative awards aren't exactly the same thing as the primtime awards. Done. --PresN 02:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Year articles

I'm trying to breathe some life into Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, and it looks like none of the core year articles have achieved FL status. What would it take for a page like 2018 to become a featured list? What about sub-lists like 2018 in literature? And would it be the same process for a more obscure year like 276? I ask because it seems like the comprehensiveness aspect would be difficult to evaluate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What happens to FL status when an article is split?

The split has been undone, and the list is back to how it was before. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:00, 6 September 2023 (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.


Looks like someone did a WP:SPINOUT of a featured list. Original article is List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi. New article is Arshad Warsi filmography. Thoughts on how to handle? Do they both need to lose FL status? Does one keep FL status? Should the spinout be reverted? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It always depends on the list in question; in this case I'd say that, as it's an even split with little change from both pre-split and from when it was promoted, then both keep the star. That said, I'd personally be against the split, as neither half is that long, so I'm curious why it was done. --PresN 13:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinging the splitter @Rishav2014. Will keep this open for more opinions, but we may end up reverting this split. In general featured content doesn't usually need this kind of heavy modification since it's already been heavily vetted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae and @PresN, I am boldly removing the FL topicon from the lists 'List of awards and nominations received by Arshad Warsi' and 'Arshad Warsi filmography' since they need FL reassessment, if such an assessment exists. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Reverted. If you believe a list no longer meets the criteria for featured status, please nominate it at WP:FLRC. --PresN 11:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually, you know what? I'm just undoing the split altogether. The list is not so long that it needs to be split, and it's not clear why that was done in the first place. --PresN 11:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for making the wise decision. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:52, 6 September 2023 (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.

RFC on set index articles vs lists vs dab pages

Please see Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Request for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

American Revolution Statuary

Does a FL need to have the name "list" in the title? (you can laugh if that's a dumb question) I've already written the 14 articles found in the table. APK hi :-) (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@APK: It does not, each content area has their own naming standards but there's plenty of FLs that don't have "list" in the title. Usually it's when there isn't both an article named "X" and one named "List of X", so in this case you'd be fine to leave the title as-is. --PresN 12:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Total awards/nominations in infobox/lede/TFL-summary should be avoided

Motivated by the IMO spurious assertion on the Mainpage today that "The Philippine television newscast 24 Oras has won thirty-two awards from ninety-three nominations", I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox awards list#Totals should be avoided. Comments there are welcome. jnestorius(talk) 14:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose the following addition to WP:FLCR #5 (open to wordsmithing and linking to improve it):

  • (c) Accessibility. It is accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists should utilize proper formatting so that they can be accurately read by screen readers. Tables should utilize appropriate table tags to allow web browsing tools to properly navigate the data presented in tabular form.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor; it makes explicit what we've been holding "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." to mean for a long time now. --PresN 16:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Support: It's essentially been a de facto requirement anyways, better to spell it out in the requirements. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Support - I didn't realize that this wasn't already in the criteria. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Support the principle, but not this wording. There are other accessibility issues that come to mind (image alt text and color usage come to mind), and while lists and tables are obviously key, we shouldn't imply these are the only items that matter. It would help to link directly to the relevant MOS page, not a subsection (since the entire MOS page is fair game). I suggest: (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly as applicable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RunningTiger123, I am fine with your wording and linking, other than as applicable. I would strike this as it is self-evident that the MOS and the FLCR are applicable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I added that since most FLs only have one or the other, not both, but I don't find it particularly necessary, either. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Support It would save us from having to link to PresN's comments everywhere. RunningTiger's wording seems better to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

All, I added the criterion. I boldly appended the hidden text that was currently hidden in the criteria regarding alt text to this criterion. Please feel free to wordsmith as needed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm happy with the wording used. --PresN 16:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing lists

I've just tried to do a sort of reconciliation of the featured lists and found nine that were marked as FLs which weren't listed on the project page and had no record on their talk pages of going through the FLC process so I've de-starred them. That leaves the following eight which all appear to be featured lists but are missing from the project page:

Please could someone more qualified add them to the approriate section. JP (Talk) 18:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Checked these and noted what the deal is inline- most of them are just page moves, but one was a bad link. All now fixed, thank you for finding them! --PresN 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
For record-keeping, the lists that got stars taken off are:
They were all erroneous, and largely seem to be people copying a block of bottom-of-the-page templates from a similar list without looking closely at what they were doing. Thank you again, @Jpeeling:! --PresN 19:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for checking these, List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) and List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE, 1971–2010) are separate lists with both showing as featured but only the former is listed. JP (Talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, messy. Looks like "List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE)" was moved to the "1971-2010" title, and then "List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions" moved to take its place. That means that the star moved to the 1971-2010 list, as List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions was never reviewed (though the list looked very different in 2007!). I'll remove the star and sort it out. --PresN 20:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

One quick question

Are dynamic lists eligible to be a featured list? I'm just asking as I'm currently working on a draft on Tropical cyclones in Russia, which is a dynamic list. Tavantius (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tavantius: They are, yes. We have many, such as List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. --PresN 15:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

FLs for television seasons

During the FLRC for 30 Rock season 1, the topic of how articles for TV seasons should be listed came up. There are currently 79 FLs for individual TV seasons, including this example. However, these lists tend to be older and newer season articles seem to go through GAN/FAC instead (I currently count nine FAs and ~130 GAs). For the FLRC, I thought the distinction was relevant because the FL works reasonably well in its current form as a list of episodes from that season, but not as well as an article about the season, if that distinction is clear. As far as I know, there is no formal consensus on how season articles should be promoted, so I was wondering if (a) we should make the consensus clear on this topic and (b) we should retroactively apply those standards to current FLs. Currently, I'm just curious about feedback from the FL side; obviously a full discussion would need to include other WikiProjects. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I fully believe that any season articles should go through the GAN/FAC process rather than that at FLC. Most television series already have a specific page for a list of their episodes (List of 30 Rock episodes in this case) and it seems to me that season articles expand beyond just a list. I've honestly never considered season articles a list because it would be pointless to have two lists covering the same topic. As for those that are already FL's, yes, they should probably be removed, and if they're still of the standard we expect these days they can go to FA instead.
I added a {{please see}} message to the talk pages of MOS:TV and WP:TV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho: Just to clarify, when you said go to FL, did you mean go to GAN/FAC instead?
I wonder if automatically removing these lists is the correct approach – many of them are still solid, and re-reviewing all of them may be an unnecessary timesink. If I had my way, I'd convert them all to GAs and let them work up to FA or down to delisting from there (FA standards are typically higher than FL so GA seems like a safer option). But I know that has its own issues. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I did, thanks for asking. Ive correcred it in my message. I would be perfectly fine with your suggestion as well, my main point was that these types of articles should not be classified as lists/go througg the FL process/or be listed as a FL, and was nore that those that are currently listed should be delat with somehow. That said, I'd have no issue with a GA conversion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I say skip the side discussions, start one at a central place, then leave notices to both projects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough, I left notifications at WT:GA and WT:FA to go with TheDoctorWho's notifications. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
While I see the argument that something like 30 Rock season 1 is an article which includes a list of episodes, at least some of the TV season FLs definitely are lists rather than articles: see e.g. List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes or One Piece season 5.
If I saw either of those at GAN I would advise the nominator to submit them at FLC instead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue at hand is that some editors think articles like One Piece season 5, despite currently being structured as a list, should be structured as an article with more context (production, reception, etc.). In other words, a season article that looks like a list should be expanded instead of submitted to FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I think "season" articles should go the GAN/FAC route. If there is an article that is just largely an episode table (like One Piece season 5 Caeciliusinhorto noted above), perhaps that article shouldn't be called a "season" article and that should be reevaluated. As RunningTiger pointed out, the expectations of a season article within the TV project as largely changed, I believe, from some of those initial nominated ones such as 30 Rock, and the expectation is it to have a good amount of prose content amongst the episode table; it shouldn't simply be that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
A season article is not a list. It's an article that its scope is the entire production and release (and everything that goes before and after) of a season. It also includes a list of episodes from that season. An article like One Piece season 5 is not a FL, but a C class article at best. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

So judging from the replies here, I think the consensus is that TV seasons should be promoted as articles instead of lists. The question then is should the current FLs be demoted? That would almost certainly overwhelm WP:FLRC if it was done all at once. Similarly, nominating all of the current FLs at GAN would overwhelm that board. Maybe we could slowly nominate the season FLs at GAN a handful at a time, and if they don't pass there, a FLRC could be started. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I do fear that one issue which may arise from sending these to GAN/FAC may be lack of participation in that process. I don't know how many of the initial FLC nominators for these season articles are still active. While I do feel strongly that they shouldn't be FL's, I don't personally have the time or interest in overseeing GAN/FAC's for all of them. Taking the 30 Rock example for a moment, that nominator hasn't been active in nearly a decade and a half, while the One Piece nominator hasn't been active in 9 years. I assume we would need to find editors who would be willing to take on that process for specific articles? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I could take on some of the work; I was thinking about going through the current FLs and seeing which ones would be good GANs, as well as which ones would probably be quick fails and should go to FLRC instead. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Following up on my previous note, I've made a list of season FLs to start tracking which ones may be good fits for new nominations at GAN. In general, I'm hoping to work with the existing nominators on this, though I can take on a few myself. I plan to start with the most recent nominations (since the nominators are more likely to be active now) and shorter seasons (since their list aspects are downplayed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists/Archive_2&oldid=1261329233"