Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and will be REMOVED. Thank you for your cooperation.

Shortcut: WT:FLC

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 FLRC delegates 1.1 Updating instructions for FLRC 2 Wikilinks to other language Wikipedia's 3 Pointless opposes 4 Size of lists 5 Nominations of lists with small scopes 6 automatic archiving? 7 hyphens in blank squares: why not en dashes? 8 New FLRC instructions? 9 Layout query 10 Move "Urgent" box to its own page? 11 Editintro for FLC nominations? 12 An FL contest 13 Column alignment

[edit] FLRC delegates

[edit] Updating instructions for FLRC

I think it might be a good idea for us to take a look at the instructions for FAR/C and possibly borrow what people think is worth having. Should there be a formal binary structure as they have there—review first, then list of removal candidates? I do think there are probably a lot of FLs out there that need a good massage if they're to retain their star. Standards have surely changed since FLC was born three years ago, as they have for FAs. TONY (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm not sure if the two-step approach FAR/C takes is necessary for Lists. It's easier to update a list, expand the header and update/find references (which are usually the three main concerns at FLRC) than it is with articles, and oftentimes these things do get done once a list is brought to FLRC. Perhaps one thing that could help the process is not just notifying the relevant Wikiprojects, but also the main contributors to the article, the one who nominated it in the first place, and perhaps those who commented on its FLC. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I disagree with the idea that it needs to be discussed or considered. The two step process at FAR is unnecessarily long and certainly overly convoluted for the lists. FARs are now sitting for weeks, with some passing a month, when they should have lost their FA class long ago. The only part of it that I agree would be useful is, as Matthew suggested, requiring the appropriate notifications be made.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

You're not "agreeing" or "disagreeing" with anything, since I just raised a question—it wasn't a proposal. So take your "ugh" elsewhere. TONY (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Sod off. TONY (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7) (This was a response to what I regarded as an offensive posting by Collectonian, who has removed it.) TONY (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

To both of you, take your bickering that isn't relevant to this talk page elsewhere. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Perhaps the folk at FAR could enlighten us of the benefits and disadvantages of their system. It certainly has an extra overhead and causes confusion. I can see the benefit of being able to recover a fading FA without the added pressure of new folk !voting remove every day. Sort of like Chapter 11. Who typically restores the article? The original editors, nominator or does it often rely on a team of willing volunteers? Should we even suggest notifying the main editors/nominates (personally, or through the article talk page) prior to FLRC -- to give editors a chance to fix it without any public embarrassment? What proportion of lists/articles are doomed (original editors gone, no volunteers)? The doomed lists should ideally be processed with minimal overhead. Colin°^Talk 12:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Colin and others: The main issue I was thinking of was the insistence at FAR/C of nominators' contacting the main authors and Wikiprojects. I see that it's not a requirement here. I don't see that "embarrassment" should play any role in updating and/or improving a FL. It's an essential part of maintaining the binary system (featured/non-featured) that you all support, or wouldn't be here, I guess. FAR is at its best when it marshals forces behind a temporary improvement drive at a FA. It safeguards standards and ensures that existing featured content adapts to new criteria. We have new criteria, and they naturally apply to all FAs, not just new ones. TONY (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I certainly approve of adding the notification step. Colin°^Talk 08:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC-7)

FAR/C is aimed partly at promoting a culture of looking after the featured content that you are successful in having promoted. I think many nominations at FAR/C that are found to be wanting are demoted because no original or subsequent editors can be bothered to address the reviewers' concerns. Too bad. The minority that garner support from those editors during the process often end up much improved and are retained. It's a necessary part of maintaining this binary featured/non-featured structure in WP. TONY (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Wikilinks to other language Wikipedia's

The List of Dutch vegetarians is a current candidate. The list contains a number of wikilinks to nl.wikipedia.org for people on the list, as well as a proportion of unlinked people. Since people-lists should list notable people (by which I mean those having a reasonable chance of a Wikipedia article), I believe the unlinked people should either be dropped or turned into red links. The issue that is less clear is whether the Dutch links should be changed to redlinks to English articles. Have we seen this issue before? Any opinions? I'm leaning towards redlinks, which would probably lead to the nomination being unsuccessful at this time. Colin°^Talk 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I was actually going to close it because it's been over a month and it doesn't have consensus yet. But I agree that the links on the page should be on this wiki. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

(ec)I agree with you Colin. Linking to the Dutch Wikipedia is just like linking to any other external link. I don't know if the links should be removed or not, but I would agree that an oppose based on this holds merit and should be changed if the list is to be featured. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I think wikilinking to another language wikipedia should be a valid reason to oppose. It could be seen as an easy way to get rid of redlinks. For this article any links to the Dutch site should be relinked to the English site, and those names that aren't linked should be, otherwise it's too much like cherry picking. Requests could always be made at Wikipedia:Translation. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 12:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I concur with the above. Per Matthewedwards, it's cherry picking and shouldn't be a valid substitute when a redlink exists. Asking for their removal as an oppose rationale is justified. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Pointless opposes

[edit] Size of lists

OK, this has come up again, and I really, really think this matter should be put to rest? What an article too small? At what point exactly does it fail to be "Wikipedia's best work"? I would really like to know. Noble Story (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

If the list is comprehensive and significant, it can be quite short. However 1 or 2 items doesn't a list make. Rmhermen (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

There has been precedence that on sports-related lists, that 10 items is the requirement for a true "list." I do feel this is arbitrary, and it depends on the list. For example, a list of 9 items where all the list consists of is a table of said items, then I would probably stick to the 10 item count. But if a list had 9 items where there was a paragraph explaining each item, I would feel more inclined to state that it can still be "Wikipedia's best work." The reason we say that most small lists are not Wikipedia's best, is to prevent over-listification (I made that word up). We dont want people to start making list like List of American Presidents in the 2000s, where yes it could be very comprehensive and well-written and all that, but there is only one item in the list. If a list is too big, its scope should be narrowed, if a list is too small, its scope should be broadened. Basically some lists just arent big enough to be featured (imho). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Gonzo pretty much explained why short lists are bad to Wikipedia and when the 10 items requirement can be ignored. Recently, many lists of head coaches are created because editors feel that these lists must be created. In reality, though, these lists should be made only if tables are too big to stay in the teams' pages.--Crzycheetah 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I agree with Gonzo and Crzycheetah. It ultimately depends on the list, but also how much detail the list goes into/should go into. A table of 9 items is a little iffy, but a list of 9 items with each thoroughly explained is different. So, I would say just for pragmatic purposes, 10 is a good cut-off, unless there is a good reason to find exception to the rule. Drewcifer (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Nominations of lists with small scopes

There's been a number of lists coming to FLC recently with small scopes of entries. While they are all excellently written, sourced, presented (basically meet all 7 criteria), can a list of only 9 entries "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work"? Right now I'm thinking of List of Houston Rockets head coaches, List of ABA champions, List of New York Jets head coaches, List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches, and List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches.

Should there be a "minimum entry" requirement? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

See the above section. There is an unwritten requirement that states no less than 10 items, but there may be some exceptions to that requirement. Gonzo explains those exceptions above.--Crzycheetah 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Haha! Whoops! Didn't notice the above discussion! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

(ec)No there shouldn't, as I loosely stated in the thread above, each list needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. But reviewers should be able to oppose based on length, stating that the current state of the article does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. As I stated above, a list can be presented in many different ways, and as CrzyCheetah stated, a list should only be created where it is best served to stand by itself, where it is too big to be housed in a broader subject matter. Yes 10 entries is arbitrary, and of course if I saw a list with 9 entries, I would not automatically oppose it, I would review the list and make a judgment on whether the list is Wikipedia's best. Personally I do not want to see a bunch of small lists become featured, and if consensus is to create a mandate that says a list must have a certain amount of entries, then I would accept it. But personally, I feel that each list should be judged on its own merits, and reviewers, in good faith, should be able to oppose a list if they feel for some reason (so long as they provide a solid reason) that it does not represent Wikipedia's best work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

List of New York Jets head coaches has 16 items, List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches has 15, and List of Houston Rockets head coaches has 11. So why are they being discussed here? Noble Story (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Simply because the issue was raised on their FLC pages. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 11:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Depends on how much information is given aside from the pure names. I think the NY Jets example is OK (except for MoS breaches, ahem). TONY (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Wikipedia's best work is determined by the featured content criterion. In this case, WP:WIAFL. Nowhere does that set of criterion state an article has to be of X length and include X items. And since FLC is bascially a discussion to determine if it meets those criteria, I personally don't see a reason why any list, regardless of size, can't become featured. Of course it would be rediculous for a list with one or two or even three items which could easily be merged into other articles or lists. If reviewers do decide their !vote using WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT, it would water down featured content and its criterion. I don't think there should be a length requirement, as a lot of lists are indeed quite small. That would take away the ability for those lists to become featured. As long as a list is comprehensive, it should deserve the title of FL just as much as a 100 kb list. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Just to point out, I would and have opposed lists because they are too large, such as a 100kb list. That makes it harder for our readers to load the page, and is a prime example of the other end of the spectrum in our problem here, where the list is too large and should have its scope narrowed into smaller separate lists.

Also, I think you are forgetting the first criterion for featured status, that the list represents Wikipedias best work. A reviewer must first feel that the list does in fact represent Wikipedia's best work before going on to the separate guidelines. If we start allowing small lists, what is going to stop people from taking a FL such as List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks, and start making List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks in the 1930s, List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks in the 1940s, and so on? These lists would serve no purpose to be lists, as a larger article already adequately covers the information they include. See, we are not opposing because of length, we are opposing because we feel that the list's scope is not large enough to lend itself to a separate list format. In this case, we feel that the lists would be better served in the parent article, until the length of the list becomes large enough to create separate articles for the different sections in the parent article. Now since people have decided this, they had to pick a number, and 10 seems to be that number. Yes it is arbitrary, but it is not set in stone, that just seems to be the number that most people feel comfortable that the list deserves to be stand alone. See above for my examples on how the 10 entries can be circumvented, that it all depends on whether the list should stand by itself, not its overall size. No one is saying "oh that list doesn't have 10 entries so I oppose." What people are saying is that the list itself is small enough and does not go into enough detail to stand alone in a separate article, thus it should remain in the parent article. Oh yeah, this has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 12:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

But what I am trying to say is that the definition of Wikipedia's best work shouldn't be limited by the scope of an article. I mean, of course I wouldn't support List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks in the 1940s as an FLC, but I wouldn't oppose, either. I would bring it to AfD based on notability. Criterion #3 states that a list has to be comprehensive. So if there are dozens of similar articles and this one just happens to be shorter, but still comprehensive, why shouldn't it be considered Wikipedia's best work? Since it already meets those criterion, why wait until List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches, for example, has 10 entries? It's not like a couple of coaches are going to retire this year, so the list could stay the same for years. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Then I think we are at a stalemate here :) I, like others, just do not want over-listification. But I will let others respond, as I have explained my position as much as I can. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 13:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Nobody wants over listification. I respect your and others' opinion on the matter, but I think the criterion is becoming less of a standard and more of what people like and/or dislike. I agree that it would be best to get the responses from the rest of the community. I hope I'm not being too much of a pain. :-) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Haha, no I understand your stance and it is no pain. But I encourage anyone coming here to comment to focus on the problems with this list, as after my review, this list is nowhere close to meeting the featured criteria, and I find it atrocious that this list has been supported for featured status. I mean this list has an image that is breaking copyright laws in it, doesn't have any categories, and so on (see the link). If, and only if, the basic issues are addressed, then we can start talking about size. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Wow, I didn't even see the lack of cats. I just assumed it would be categorized. Gah, I feel like a bad reviewer. :-/ Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Haha, I looked like 4 times just to make sure I wasnt missing them, and don't worry, that is something most people don't notice because it should be there before coming here :/ « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

In this context, I believe in the principle of "I know it when I see it." I nominated the 10-item list Nicknames of Houston for FL status after I ran across the article and said to myself, "This is an exemplar of a list!" The article is about a collection of disparate elements that are individually non-notable (this is a defining attribute of many lists), it is comprehensive and well sourced, and (most importantly in my mind) Nicknames of Houston makes an odd collection of elements into an interesting and notable topic. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC-7)

I don't see why length itself should be considered an actionable objection. If you think it would be better off merged into an article, then object on that basis, but if there's a consensus for a list's existence, length itself is not relevant. (FYI, my own list of calypso-like genres may be the shortest non-sports list (anyone know of a shorter one?) Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office has ten. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm trying to get List of heads of state of Gabon, and that has 4 entries. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 14:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC-7)

That's a ridiculous proposal, IMHO. Featured lists should be used to highlight effective use of the list format to present information that does not lend itself to the more conventional article format. I believe that a nice article could be written about Gabon's four heads of state without resorting to a tabular format; indeed, I think an article in paragraph form form would be more effective than the current list format. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] automatic archiving?

The talk page is rather large by now. How do people feel about inserting an automatic archiving for all sections that haven't been touched for the past 10 days? It works well at MOS talk. TONY (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Go for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Definitely. Drewcifer (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] hyphens in blank squares: why not en dashes?

I notice that hyphens are normally used, such as here:

Announced	Diva	Brand	Order	Eliminated by
01 1	Maria	Raw	02 2	Hall
02 2	Beth Phoenix	Raw	12 -	WINNER
03 3	Melina	Raw	09 9	McCool & Wilson
04 4	Jillian Hall	Raw	07 7	Wilson
05 5	Mickie James	Raw	08 8	Melina
06 6	Torrie Wilson	SD!	10	Phoenix
07 7	Victoria	SD!	04 4	Marshall
08 8	Kristal Marshall	SD!	05 5	McCool
09 9	Michelle McCool	SD!	11	Phoenix
10	Layla	ECW	03 3	Melina
11	Kelly Kelly	ECW	06 6	Phoenix & Hall
12	Brooke	ECW	01 1	Phoenix

I wonder why en dashes haven't been mandated from the start. They are much more readable in this context:

Announced	Diva	Brand	Order	Eliminated by
01 1	Maria	Raw	02 2	Hall
02 2	Beth Phoenix	Raw	12 –	WINNER
03 3	Melina	Raw	09 9	McCool & Wilson
04 4	Jillian Hall	Raw	07 7	Wilson
05 5	Mickie James	Raw	08 8	Melina
06 6	Torrie Wilson	SD!	10	Phoenix
07 7	Victoria	SD!	04 4	Marshall
08 8	Kristal Marshall	SD!	05 5	McCool
09 9	Michelle McCool	SD!	11	Phoenix
10	Layla	ECW	03 3	Melina
11	Kelly Kelly	ECW	06 6	Phoenix & Hall
12	Brooke	ECW	01 1	Phoenix

TONY (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

From what I can tell they are already mandated. The new thing is to actually use mdashes that look like — for blank spaces. But, the dashes have always been a big point brought up since I have been reviewing lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 08:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Indeed. I have yet to complete a PR, GAR, FLC or FAC where an incorrect use of a dash was not brought up. It is part of the style guide, after all. Resolute 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Well, we should get tough on it. TONY (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I can't speak for all FLCs or all reviewers, but I bring up the dashes in every discography FLC I review. Drewcifer (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Me too, though I always thought (and ask the nominators) to use mdashes. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

I don't use en dashes in this situation; I usually use em dashes. I prefer them because they are longer so it conveys the message better to the reader that the cell is purposely empty. Gary King (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Hmmm, Gary, I've thought about em dashes already, and concluded that they're just a bit on the large size, and end up drawing the eyes towards the absence of info. Hyphens are just too squidgy to see, but en dashes are just right (Goldilocks). That's my take, anyway. TONY (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

Odd, I thought en-dashes were already required. Hyphens are definitely not appropriate though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)

En dashes work for me, too. Done and done. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] New FLRC instructions?

I've taken the bull by the horns. Please criticise. Wikipedia talk:Featured list removal candidates. TONY (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC-7)

People see problems with the elaborate binary system used at FARC. Fair enough; so I propose a modest revamp of the instructions, with the substantive change of introducing the notion of list improvement/updating (not a separate structural section, though). I feel that this is an important part of running a featured-content program: not just shooting 'em down when they don't comply.

HERE. TONY (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Layout query

I've just reviewed another nomination where I feel the columns are unreasonably narrow—one in particular has the text squashed downwards, one or words per line. The "Term" column could easily be narrowed (two-digit closing years should be the norm in tables, I think).

Yet there's only one pic to the right of the table, and it would fit in above nicely in the "Key" section. That would enable the table to be spread out fully to avoid the squash.

In general, I find a tendency to waste space in some columns that could be used to wide columns in which there's considerable double-back of text. Does anyone else think more attention might be paid to this aspect of layout in FLs? I know the table spreads automatically when you widen your window, but (1) lots of visitors won't know to do that, (2) it's a nuisance to have to do it, and (3) some folks will have small monitors and/or slow connections for the doing.

List_of_New_York_Jets_head_coaches#Key TONY (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC-7)

The smallest monitor size that a page should accommodate for is 1024x768. That used to be the norm for many years but recently, people have gotten much bigger monitors so that size is roughly 50% of all monitors while the remaining 50% is larger than that. I agree that things shouldn't be squished (who would disagree on that?) but the problem is that this is a layout issue that most people won't know how to resolve or will often forget; the only reason I usually check for this is because of my web development background... Gary King (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Move "Urgent" box to its own page?

Is it okay if I moved the "Urgent" box to its own page, so it can be watched separately? I watch WP:FLC and I would rather not want to see all the edits made to the Urgent box; I can add an "Edit", "History", and "Watch" button to the Urgent box so you can still do all those actions from the comfort of WP:FLC, but it would just house that information on another page that can also be transcluded to other pages if wanted. Gary King (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

This is a good idea. I think WP:GAN does this. Not sure about FAC. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

I'd prefer to keep it on this page, then I can remove the closures and stuff in the urgent box at the same time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

FAC has a completely separate page for this. GAN does this. Also, I was going to bring this up but finally did because Rambling Man made, like, 10 edits to remove a handful of lists :p Gary King (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Also, this would help with organization, and certainly breaking up pages in segments is more helpful than hurtful. For instance, the instructions on FLC are on a separate page, so minor design changes and such do not bother those watching this page. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

But for those people watching this page, when the "urgent"/"overtime" box is updated, it can remind people to check to see if they've reviewed the urgent pages yet. I know it does for me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Then those people (myself included) can simply watchlist the separate page. Drewcifer (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Mea culpa. I believe it's a good idea. Peer review backlog also has such a concept, which is very useful, and dates each peer review without comment. We could develop an analogy I think without too much difficulty. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Looks like a good idea. I actually would prefer to watchlist a separate page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Done and done. Check it out. Gary King (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Columns are now automatic, so there is no need to add {{multicol-break}} to wherever it needs to be added. Gary King (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] Editintro for FLC nominations?

I figure I'd bring this to the attention of FLC and perhaps it may want an editintro, too. It was recently added to FAC, but perhaps it is not needed at FLC; it's really up to the directors because I'm not sure how many improper or malformed nominations come through here typically? Here is the discussion for FAC: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#New_editintro_for_FAC_nominations Gary King (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm sure FAC gets far more premature nominations than FLC does, but I can't really see the harm in putting a similar notice. The same reasons apply, just on a diminished scope. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC-7)

[edit] An FL contest

The Rambling Man and I have decided to run an FL-related contest. The trick of it is that entrants will not be allowed to work on any of the most popular topics. Anyone who is interested can find more information here. If you do not want to enter, then you can always review the entries that the contestants submit, that way the contest won't get delayed by the process. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Will there be any copyeditors volunteering to help with the contest entries? In my experience, it is often one of the biggest stalling points of an FLCs...trying to find someone to copyedit. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Copy-editing usually isn't a problem for most FLCs since there isn't a lot of text, and any MoS or prose problems can be identified and fixed during the nomination fairly easily. Most of the problems tend to come from table formatting, other features, and whatnot. There are exceptions (like List of Naruto characters that needs copy-editing due to the sheer amount of prose), but most of the time, it isn't an issue. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

My plan is to ask some of the regulars who don't enter to help out with that. And just a small note, entrants will be able to select their topics starting tomorrow at noon (GMT). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Ugh.. I'll be in bed.. that's 4.00am where I am. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

Perhaps I could push it back so that it will be more fair to North Americans (but still be convenient for Europeans) how about 6:00 PM GMT? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

That's reasonable. 11:00 AM U.S. Pacific Time for me. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC-7)

It would be better, but I'm not sure how the Australians and NZers would like it! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy solution: as far as I can tell (which isn't easy because not every user advertises their location) there aren't any entrants (yet) from outside of Europe or NA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then 6pm sounds good to me then. BTW, Sephiroth, I'm pretty sure 6pm GMT is 10am PDT. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

UTC is the normal system. TONY (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Prose problems can be identified and fixed during the nomination fairly easily". No, FL nominations should not be made unless the nominator is satisfied that the prose already satisfies the criteria; see Cr. 1. FLC is not conceived as a fixit programs—a place to finish off the prose—even if some fixing usually occurs as a result of reviewers' comments. IMO, the standards of prose in nominations are generally not good enough. TONY (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Column alignment

Something has been bothering me for some time, and I just now had the idea to bring it up here. The majority of lists nominated here use the default text alignment for columns in tables. That is, most columns are left-aligned without much thought. This might seem nitpicky, but I think format-wise this is a mistake that is usually left unresolved. To the best of my knowledge, columns should be aligned as follows:

• Text: left
• Dates: left
• Years: center
• Rank: center
• Cumulative data: right
• Other data: center
• References (in-line citations): center

I don't know if that's an exhaustive list of all the types of content that is put into tables, but I think it's pretty close.

So, to unfairly pick on one current FLC (since it seems to have most of the types of content mentioned above), take a look at List of New York Islanders head coaches. I think this stuff particularly applies to sports articles, since they tend to include alot different types of info. If you compare that list to something like a baseball card (ie this one), you can see some pretty obvious differences between the way the article does it and the established way of doing this stuff. IE. Cumulative stats (like number of home runs, games coached, wins, losses, averages, etc) are right aligned, text left aligned, etc.

Maybe I'm being a little nitpicky, but I'd like to see lists kept to high standards, like most of us here. Drewcifer (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Column width and text alignment needs to be taken more seriously, IMO, under Cr 6. TONY (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is a mess, but there are plenty of people who do it right, too. Drewcifer, what is meant by "Other data"? Numbers or prose, because if it's prose in a "Description" column, it should be left-aligned. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was other numerical data that's not cumulative. So like chart positions. Or maybe a player's jersey number or something like that. Drewcifer (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FLC is the place to insist the everyone do it right, surely? And I'm concerned at the issue of window widening: most users won't widen their window when they visit a FL, yet the placement of pics to the right of tables often assumes that they will, am I right? Am I the first to jump up and down about this matter? TONY (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. I think it all depends on the list. I suppose there are some where the pictures squash the table so it looks ugly, but I'm equally sure that there will be some tables with only a few, and naturally narrow columns where it makes sense to put images down the right side of the page. Which lists were you thinking in particular? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)