Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 21) (bot |
Ianblair23 (talk | contribs) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
There's quite a few FL accolade lists that have the updated one table format but every one of these (a vast majority) is still the old outdated format. I'm really not sure how we should go about this, I just thought I should bring it to everyone's attention since we've been having quite a few accolade lists pop up at FLC that still have the outdated format as of recently. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]])</sub> 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
There's quite a few FL accolade lists that have the updated one table format but every one of these (a vast majority) is still the old outdated format. I'm really not sure how we should go about this, I just thought I should bring it to everyone's attention since we've been having quite a few accolade lists pop up at FLC that still have the outdated format as of recently. – '''[[User:Zmbro|zmbro]]''' <sub>([[User talk:Zmbro|talk]])</sub> 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
*If there are pages that you feel no longer meet the FL criteria for this reason, you or other interested users can work on the tables to bring the formatting in line with what is expected in 2020. If you don't want to do that, then you are free to continue nominating them at FLRC. In case there are music editors who want to work on the tables, I'd suggest limiting yourself to one or two at a time to avoid overwhelming them with work. If lists with the old table formatting are nominated at FLC, you can oppose the nominations on the basis of the outdated table formatting. In either case, it would be helpful to point to a list with the proper formatting, to guide editors in the right direction if they want to bring the formatting to modern standards (as was done in the Camila Cabello FLC that is linked in the Radiohead FLRC). [[User:Giants2008|<span style="color: blue">Giants2008</span>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<span style="color: darkblue;">Talk</span>]]) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
*If there are pages that you feel no longer meet the FL criteria for this reason, you or other interested users can work on the tables to bring the formatting in line with what is expected in 2020. If you don't want to do that, then you are free to continue nominating them at FLRC. In case there are music editors who want to work on the tables, I'd suggest limiting yourself to one or two at a time to avoid overwhelming them with work. If lists with the old table formatting are nominated at FLC, you can oppose the nominations on the basis of the outdated table formatting. In either case, it would be helpful to point to a list with the proper formatting, to guide editors in the right direction if they want to bring the formatting to modern standards (as was done in the Camila Cabello FLC that is linked in the Radiohead FLRC). [[User:Giants2008|<span style="color: blue">Giants2008</span>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<span style="color: darkblue;">Talk</span>]]) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
== [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester]] == |
|||
Hi {{U|Giants2008|Giants}}, {{U|PresN}} and {{U|The Rambling Man|TRM}}, I was doing some clean up on the featured lists when I discovered the following. [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester]] was promoted to FL status back in [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester|February 2008]]. The list contained buildings only within the metropolitan borough of [[Manchester]]. In 2017, there was [[Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester#Greater Manchester|discussion on the talk page]] that the scope of the list should be expanded to include all buildings within the [[Greater Manchester]] area. {{U|Delusion23}} had the sensible idea for merging both [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester]] and [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford]] (also a featured list promoted in [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford|May 2008]] and reviewed in [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford/archive1|December 2012]]) into a combined Greater Manchester list. However, [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester]] was created but the articles were not merged. Since then the Manchester list has been redirected to Greater Manchester list and the Salford lists stands alone. Both lists have been substantially rewritten and updated by {{U|ChrisClarke88}}. |
|||
So the question is what to do with the FL status of the redirected article. At the moment the Greater Manchester list is listed at [[Wikipedia:Featured lists]] but the list is not currently displaying the star. There are some issues with the Greater Manchester list including having only one ref in the lead and all the refs are [[Wikipedia:Bare URLs|bare urls]]. So we either assume that Greater Manchester list has inherited the star and place the list up for review at [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates]] or we just simply remove the Greater Manchester list from [[WP:FL]]. |
|||
Thoughts? – [[User:Ianblair23|Ianblair23]] [[User talk:Ianblair23|(talk)]] 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:My thought is (and apologies for my reasonably long-term absence around these parts) that we move the FL star to [[List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester]] but immediately go to FLRC as clearly the scope (and undoubtedly quality) of the list has changed since it was last adequately reviewed. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Staying alive since 2005!]])</small> 15:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree; especially with both "parts" having been promoted almost 12 years ago and the resulting merge mess, a more formal referendum on the status is warranted- as well as whether it makes sense to have both "Greater Manchester" and "Salford" lists (at least in terms of FL criteria). --'''[[User:PresN|<span style="color:green">Pres</span>]][[User talk:PresN|<span style="color:blue">N</span>]]''' 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm in agreement with my colleagues. Give the Greater Manchester list the star, but nominate it at FLRC due to its obvious deficiencies. [[User:Giants2008|<span style="color: blue">Giants2008</span>]] ([[User talk:Giants2008|<span style="color: darkblue;">Talk</span>]]) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{U|Ianblair23}} if you're okay with that, let me know, I'll try to do the paperwork. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Staying alive since 2005!]])</small> 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi all, looks like we are in agreement. Good to see you back around here {{U|The Rambling Man|TRM}}. Take it away. Cheers – [[User:Ianblair23|Ianblair23]] [[User talk:Ianblair23|(talk)]] 21:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:57, 18 January 2020
The closure log
Comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and PresN (talk · contribs), and other notes of pertinence. Should you wish to contact the delegates, you can use the {{@FLC}} ping facility.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms (2000–present)
What's the story with this one? The Bot is complaining that the article doesn't exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- The nominator/sole editor decided to instead have a single "List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms" list, and deleted the article rather than redirect it. I'll restore and mark the nomination as archived. --PresN 19:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Question about nomination
Hi there! Just have a question about my nomination, List of awards and nominations received by Exo. It has recently been moved into the "Source Review Needed" section; however, 2 of the 4 supports it currently has both include extremely detailed source reviews. Am I missing something or is this an error? The Nom currently has 4 supports and no outstanding comments or opposes. NicklausAU 12:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- While it looks like the list has been promoted since this comment, I just want to clarify that we need reviewers to say that they've reviewed the reliability and formatting of references under the heading Source review or similar, so that us closers don't miss the reviews in the middle of capped commentary. Spot-checks of cited material to the sources are greatly appreciated as well, and checks that the links are working also help us. Basically, anything reviewers can do to help in the category of source reviewing would go a long way toward making the FLC process faster and better. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: I was one of the persons who reviewed every single reference myself (for formatting/reliability/dead links etc.) and made sure everything was uniform and in working order and that all links were live or archived if dead. My review was pretty detailed as regards sources. Do I need to edit my final comment (where I gave my support) and say it there or highlight the parts of my review that did so to make things easier for someone looking at it? Point me in the right direction and I'll clarify if that's what you need. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- For the previous FLC, you don't need to do anything as that has now been closed and PresN also reviewed the sources. In the future, if you do a source review and find no issues with reliability or formatting, say so in your review and try separating it from your other comments so the closers can more easily see that a source review was done. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: I was one of the persons who reviewed every single reference myself (for formatting/reliability/dead links etc.) and made sure everything was uniform and in working order and that all links were live or archived if dead. My review was pretty detailed as regards sources. Do I need to edit my final comment (where I gave my support) and say it there or highlight the parts of my review that did so to make things easier for someone looking at it? Point me in the right direction and I'll clarify if that's what you need. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Nomination question
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Japan/archive1 currently has 3 supports, I'd like to put another list up for review if possible (I don't know if FLC operates the same way as FAC, but the Japan list is a co-nomination and the one I'd want to run is a solo nomination, so that may be enough on its own). Can one of the delegates let me know? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Next Nine
I know we went through this with the Mercury Seven, which was rejected for FLC, but I would like an opinion on whether the Next Nine would be acceptable? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think so; like with M7, it's structured like an article that happens to have a 9-item table in the middle, not like a list that has some framing paragraphs. --PresN 21:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Outdated FL accolades pages
Hi all. After nominating List of awards and nominations received by Radiohead for FLRC (since it uses the outdated mini-table format on top of barely any references), User:DanielleTH brought up a good point here – that many accolade lists by musical groups/artists that are FLs still use the outdated mini-table format. I decided to do a deep dive into this issue and present a list of accolade lists that all use this outdated format as well as my opinion on whether each list still looks like a proper FL (mainly based solely on references):
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No (there's actually a few tags on this one)
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes, but it's less than 9k bytes so there's honestly no reason for it to not be merged with Dave Matthews Band
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No
- Still FL quality? – No (literally been a citation tag on this one since May 2017)
- Still FL quality? – No, barely sourced and some refs are bare urls
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – No, only has 9 refs total, honestly have no idea how this was promoted
- Still FL quality? – Weak no
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes, although it starts with "this is a list..."
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes, although it starts with "this is a list..."
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Weak yes, although it's less than 11k bytes, so possible merge?
- Still FL quality? – No, multiple tags since January 2016 and the star doesn't even appear at the top of the page (?)
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
- Still FL quality? – Yes
There's quite a few FL accolade lists that have the updated one table format but every one of these (a vast majority) is still the old outdated format. I'm really not sure how we should go about this, I just thought I should bring it to everyone's attention since we've been having quite a few accolade lists pop up at FLC that still have the outdated format as of recently. – zmbro (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- If there are pages that you feel no longer meet the FL criteria for this reason, you or other interested users can work on the tables to bring the formatting in line with what is expected in 2020. If you don't want to do that, then you are free to continue nominating them at FLRC. In case there are music editors who want to work on the tables, I'd suggest limiting yourself to one or two at a time to avoid overwhelming them with work. If lists with the old table formatting are nominated at FLC, you can oppose the nominations on the basis of the outdated table formatting. In either case, it would be helpful to point to a list with the proper formatting, to guide editors in the right direction if they want to bring the formatting to modern standards (as was done in the Camila Cabello FLC that is linked in the Radiohead FLRC). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Giants, PresN and TRM, I was doing some clean up on the featured lists when I discovered the following. List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester was promoted to FL status back in February 2008. The list contained buildings only within the metropolitan borough of Manchester. In 2017, there was discussion on the talk page that the scope of the list should be expanded to include all buildings within the Greater Manchester area. Delusion23 had the sensible idea for merging both List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester and List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford (also a featured list promoted in May 2008 and reviewed in December 2012) into a combined Greater Manchester list. However, List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester was created but the articles were not merged. Since then the Manchester list has been redirected to Greater Manchester list and the Salford lists stands alone. Both lists have been substantially rewritten and updated by ChrisClarke88.
So the question is what to do with the FL status of the redirected article. At the moment the Greater Manchester list is listed at Wikipedia:Featured lists but the list is not currently displaying the star. There are some issues with the Greater Manchester list including having only one ref in the lead and all the refs are bare urls. So we either assume that Greater Manchester list has inherited the star and place the list up for review at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates or we just simply remove the Greater Manchester list from WP:FL.
Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- My thought is (and apologies for my reasonably long-term absence around these parts) that we move the FL star to List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Manchester but immediately go to FLRC as clearly the scope (and undoubtedly quality) of the list has changed since it was last adequately reviewed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree; especially with both "parts" having been promoted almost 12 years ago and the resulting merge mess, a more formal referendum on the status is warranted- as well as whether it makes sense to have both "Greater Manchester" and "Salford" lists (at least in terms of FL criteria). --PresN 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with my colleagues. Give the Greater Manchester list the star, but nominate it at FLRC due to its obvious deficiencies. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ianblair23 if you're okay with that, let me know, I'll try to do the paperwork. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi all, looks like we are in agreement. Good to see you back around here TRM. Take it away. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ianblair23 if you're okay with that, let me know, I'll try to do the paperwork. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement with my colleagues. Give the Greater Manchester list the star, but nominate it at FLRC due to its obvious deficiencies. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree; especially with both "parts" having been promoted almost 12 years ago and the resulting merge mess, a more formal referendum on the status is warranted- as well as whether it makes sense to have both "Greater Manchester" and "Salford" lists (at least in terms of FL criteria). --PresN 15:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)