Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The closure log
edit · history · watch · refresh

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

FLC
  • 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!
FLRC
  • Kept
    • None
  • FLRCs of special note
    • None
Shortcut

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured lists/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer. To send a message to the FLC director and the FLC delegates, use the {{@FLC}} template.

Maximum length for an FL?

[edit]

Hi everyone, I wanted to post here to get other thoughts about this: what is the maximum length allowed for a successful FLN? I've been working on improving the list List of villages in Donetsk Oblast for a while and was hoping to bring it through the FL process eventually but considering there's 968 items in the list, I was wondering whether it would be possible to get it promoted. For comparison, the longest FLs I've seen so far are about 300ish items long. The topic itself is very notable and I have access to all the 2001 census population statistics for each village, plus the administrative divisions/locations/etc., so the main consideration is what direction would be best to take for the article. Curious to hear other opinions! :) Thanks, Dan the Animator 02:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard limit as far as FLC is concerned, but there are practical limits- specifically, depending on the format, a ~1000 item list may be a) too long for readers to realistically browse through, b) take too long for the page to load to be appropriate, or c) be so long that the wiki software just cuts off the page. The last one depends on how many templates and references you're using; I've hit it at ~300 items on my animal lists. The first two are subjective, however. Without seeing the final product it's hard to judge, but I'd recommend going ahead and making the list and then use your judgement on whether reviewers are going to ask that it be split up into smaller lists like (A-M)/(N-Z). --PresN 02:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PresN! :) That makes sense. I guess the main thing I'm not sure about is whether it would be practical to tabulate the villages like I have them in the List of cities in Donetsk Oblast article. I think the separate list idea is great but I'm not sure it would make as much sense then if it's tabulated, since it'll prevent any meaningful comparisons on the statistics (since the data would be split up amongst tables on separate articles). Also not sure how that would affect creating the lead since having alphabetical dividers is mostly arbitrary and the leads would probably have to be duplicated amongst the lists.
Maybe do you think it would be possible to get the list promoted without tables? I'm thinking, even if its less informative, the current bullet list format the article uses would probably be better. The list is already complete (all 968 villages are listed) so the size won't really change but adding in tables would stretch out the list a lot. Also was thinking of having the table overfill to the side but maybe that's too confusing? Dan the Animator 03:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overfill to the side would be confusing, yeah. I don't think that a bulleted list would be too bad, but maybe there's a midpoint between just the name+district and the full name/ukr name/district/2022pop/2001pop/change of the table. Maybe something like
  • Andriivka (Андріївка) - 74 / 0
And have a section at the top explaining that it's "english name (ukr name) - 2001 population / 2022 estimated population"? Or something in between, it's your list. It's really not the amount of content you need to worry about, it's presenting it in such a way that you're not forced to have one village per row - even 3 columns would probably be just fine.
I don't disagree with RunningTiger123, though, it's possible that just a wikitable like the cities list would still be viable, just very long. --PresN 18:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The longest FL I recall is List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones, which has ~750 entries, so ~1000 entries isn't too much of a stretch. As long as you don't have a bunch of images, I wouldn't imagine there would be major issues with loading, either. The only other issue I can think of is the post-expand include size, but from my experience the biggest contributor to that can be citation templates, and since you'd presumably be using only a few references for large portions of the list, I wouldn't expect issues there. So personally I think it would be better to keep everything in one list (and preferably in a table if you're going to include other statistics so that people can sort by them), but that's just me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1,218 entries at List of municipalities in Quebec. Hwy43 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm leaning towards trying out the table based on what RunningTiger123 said and the Quebec list that Hwy43 linked. Even if it gets on the longer side, it probably won't be as long as the GoT or Quebec lists (which thanks RunningTiger123 and Hwy43 for linking them! :) This list will take a while to finish up but I'll bring it through FL when its ready. Thanks everyone for the feedback! ;) Dan the Animator 21:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviewers needed

[edit]

I've noticed for some time, and especially lately, that we're sorely lacking in individuals willing to complete source reviews. In doing source reviews, I typically evaluate the following:

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Links are not dead, and if dead, are marked as such
  • References verify what they're meant to verify (spot checks may be appropriate for experienced editors who are continuing a series, such as lists of Billboard number ones, but non-FLC regulars should be checked more thoroughly)

Even if you want to contribute and help out with source reviews by calling out that you did the first half of them, every bit helps, and that may make someone else more willing to step up and finish where you left off. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#Proposal to Refine WP:FLCR #6

[edit]

Centralizing the discussion. Please see the above link for my proposal regarding the WP:FLCR. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding geo-fenced reference urls

[edit]

The Election Commission of India has an archive of past results of elections, but it is geo-fenced to only be accessible within India (example url). I've had a discussion with a reviewer on one of my FLCs regarding this. I've currently used "|url-access=limited" to indicate this geo fencing, but this isn't ideal as it is meant for to show "free access is subject to limited trial and a subscription is normally required", per Template:Citation#Subscription or registration required. The reviewer suggests that I remove this param and use "|url-status=dead" so that the archive url is shown first. This doesn't seem right to me as the url is live. Does anyone have a better option? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that having the archived link come first provides accessibility to the most amount of people and makes verification easier. More context on this discussion can be found here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is really more of a "how should the citation template handle this case" question, so I've cross-posted it to Help talk:Citation Style 1#Query regarding geo-fenced reference urls. --PresN 16:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Codification of existing rule: 8 items minimum

[edit]

Hi all, for a long, long time FLC has had an unwritten rule for how many items a list needed to have to meet the guidelines for a stand-alone list and therefore be eligible for FL: 10 items. In the past year, however, we've had more and more lists that were almost at ten items, asking for (and receiving) exceptions. These exceptions have been just based on how the delegates felt about it/how much surrounding text there was/whether it was part of a long-running series, though, which is not a fair standard, and has led to shorter and shorter lists, as low as 4 or 5 items, asking for exceptions.

We've been discussing internally how to make a more objective standard, and have decided on lowering the unwritten standard to an explicit written standard: 8 items. These items do not have to be in a single table, but we do not feel that any shorter can really qualify as an FL.

Note if this rule would affect a potential Topic that that WP:FTCRITERIA@3.c. allows for short lists to be included. We welcome discussion on this rule update, which goes into affect immediately. --PresN 15:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a hard rule. Especially when considering sets of related articles, existing FLs like List of counties in Hawaii and List of counties in Rhode Island (though these older ones are lacking in prose) are still fine to promote – their having fewer items than similar lists doesn't make them worse or unable to be featured. 3(c)'s parts on not being a content fork and "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" should be adequate. Many short lists should be merged, but many others I would not, such as these county lists. List of administrative divisions by country has other examples of these. Reywas92Talk 20:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose we consider what to treat as an exception @Reywas92? My concern is that there would be creep without a hard rule, and the length of these lists is becoming more of an issue that we run into this past year from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that it's not always clear, but to me it comes down to whether it should be merged to another page, which unfortunately also depends on how many columns or how much descriptive prose there is and what the parent article is like. I've made this recommendation about short lists before myself, an sometimes even longer lists can be merged! I just don't like saying that some pages don't qualify for GA/FA/FL at all so folks might not want to put in effort to improve them even if beneficial. I see this stems from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan. Tone has done amazing work on WHS lists, though I also think the regional lists can be good and we don't necessarily need individual articles for every country so I agree with the sentiment there. Maybe 5 would be better. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: This has actually been a general guideline that was followed for a while now, with this just being codification of it. There was actually a few lists recently that this applied to, including another active nomination, so it's not that list in particular for what it's worth. The problem, for me at least, comes down to how we can apply a basic minimum length and what kind of clear and straight forward rules we can create for any type of exceptions that may exist to said rules, if any. There will always be folks who believe their list should be an exception, and it's better if it's codified in a way that doesn't come down to a judgement call on our behalf. I do get where you're coming from, but the length of some lists nominated is something that I've received some complaints about in the past, which is part of why we've discussed codifying it. I don't think we're necessarily stuck on this number, we just need to have some type of criteria that we can apply without it being as much of a judgement call. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we set a hard rule, we could imply that any list that hits that benchmark is automatically suitable as a stand-alone list (i.e., "my list meets the FLC criteria by having 10 items, so it must be a good stand-alone list"). I'm concerned that passing a "minimum item count" threshold will be seen as an implicit endorsement that the list meets WP:NLIST / WP:STANDALONE when the actual guidelines are much more nuanced. I also don't think there is a good way to define a set cutoff for all types of lists. As recent discussions have shown, season articles can list well more than 5/8/10 episodes and still be better suited at GA/FA, and on the flip side as noted by Reywas92, there are short lists that are reasonable stand-alone lists.
The whole point of an FLC nomination is to have a discussion about any issues – if list length is a issue, the discussion should be able to handle it. (See this as an example.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that setting a requirement for becoming a featured list equates to designating what is good enough to be a stand-alone list. I also believe the number of entries in a list is entirely irrelevant to whether a subject meets WP:NLIST. For example, we saw quite a few broadcaster lists deleted this year that had a lot of entries and yet still failed NLIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I just think it's easy for less familiar editors to conflate guidelines for FLC (which the size limit would be) with guidelines for stand-alone lists (which the size limit would not be). I guess if there is a hard rule, which I still think isn't ideal for the second reason I noted, it should be clear this is only the former and not a NLIST / STANDALONE guideline. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also find a hard rule challenging, but wouldn't necessarily be opposed. That said, maybe we carve out an exception for small lists when the topic is widely covered as a specifically named topic. As an example, 'List of counties by state' is a clear topic that is widely covered as such, regardless of size. Basically, does the list as titled and scoped meet (maybe a stringent reading of) WP:GNG? Is it part of a larger topic that makes sense to be broken out as such, even if that means some entries may be short.
Noting RunningTiger123's example of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award/archive1, that discussion did lead me to create List of Green Bay Packers award winners and bring to FLC (anyone feel like doing a source review for me?). That said, this example isn't really applicable to the 'List of counties by state' or 'List of World Heritage Sites in country' topics. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Featured List process does not have any special sway with interpretations of NLIST or STANDALONE. "It's long enough for FLC" has never been a winning argument for those discussions, and making our rule a hard 8 instead of a soft 10 does not change that. The wording of the rule is "it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items", not "by including at minimum eight items".
  2. We are open to finding a way to make clear guidelines that would allow things like List of counties in Hawaii or List of World Heritage Sites in Kyrgyzstan, but have been unable to find a way that wouldn't apply to, well, any list at all. Almost any list can be thought of as being part of a (theoretical) series - List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award is part of a "list of (NFL team) players to win an MVP award" series. If anyone can come up with something, we can adjust it. --PresN 21:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1259187696"