Matthewedwards (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
It isn't just the lead sections that are contradicting each other, it seems to be pretty much everything. Wikipedia is constantly changing and ''we'' have to ensure that our guidelines change with it, because as we know from the number of reviewers and nominators to FLC, lists are a niche subject and we're not going to find many other people who are as interested as we are. [[User:Matthewedwards|Matthewedwards]] ([[User talk:Matthewedwards|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards|contribs]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Emailuser/Matthewedwards|email]]) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
It isn't just the lead sections that are contradicting each other, it seems to be pretty much everything. Wikipedia is constantly changing and ''we'' have to ensure that our guidelines change with it, because as we know from the number of reviewers and nominators to FLC, lists are a niche subject and we're not going to find many other people who are as interested as we are. [[User:Matthewedwards|Matthewedwards]] ([[User talk:Matthewedwards|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards|contribs]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Emailuser/Matthewedwards|email]]) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
I removed that contradiction from the lead section section at Lists when this was raised a while ago by TRM. And guess who's lurking there to revert it (10 days ago)—our old friend of progress, Francis Shonken. I've rewritten it (with a sense of deja vu until I looked at the history): I'll need '''back-up''' there, please. Francis Shonken has serious ownership issues with several style and policy pages, and has a long track-record of reverting any change for the better. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:15, 28 September 2008
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. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Laziness/repetition in names
I think we've gotten a bit lazy with names for lists. Examples from the current crop of FLCs:
- Nashville Sounds seasons
- List of Bryan Adams awards
Lists used to be, I think, in the format of "List of X of Y". So in this case, it would be "List of seasons of the Nashville Sounds". But even worse is the second. When I see "Bryan Adams awards", I think "awards named after, or awarded by, Bryan Adams", not "Awards received by Bryan Adams". So in this case, this should be "List of awards received by Bryan Adams". But right now, we seem to be trending towards "X's Ys" or "List of X's Ys."
Of course, then we get to another interesting question: We have no articles that begin with "Article about". So could the above be shortened to, "Seasons of the Nashville Sounds"? "Awards received by Bryan Adams"? The first sounds a little awkward but the second seems spot on. So some similar ones in FLC:
- List of Denver Nuggets head coaches
- List of Governors of Alaska
- List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records
Would be...
- Head coaches of the Denver Nuggets
- Governors of Alaska
- Liverpool F.C. statistics and records
I see some on FLC now that contradict each other; we presently have both "List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records" and "Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records". I don't know if I've ever seen people bring up this trend in their FLC voting, but I know I'm about to start. I'd like to not be screaming at a brick wall, however; does anyone else see a problem with the naming of lists? I find the first issue here (simplifying from "X of Y" to "X's Ys") far worse than having a "List of" in the title, but perhaps we should start working away from that as well? --Golbez (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the "list of…" part is very important. If I see a page titled "Governors of Alaska", I will expect to see a short paragraph about each governor. The "list of…" part just implies to the readers that the governors are listed one by one. As for the "List of Bryan Adams awards" problem, I agree with you, the title should be changed.--Crzycheetah 00:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Okay, so we keep "List of" where it makes sense. What got me on this was an FLC a few weeks ago, "Mozart's operas". There are several problems with this, and it was eventually renamed "List of operas by Mozart". --Golbez (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The award pages often include nominations too. In fact, a lot of them have more nominations than awards won, so a good name change needs to be thought of for those. Otherwise I agree. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point. Okay, so we keep "List of" where it makes sense. What got me on this was an FLC a few weeks ago, "Mozart's operas". There are several problems with this, and it was eventually renamed "List of operas by Mozart". --Golbez (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed new co-director for FLRC
Following the discussion above (Wikipedia_talk:FLC#The_FLRC_delegate_position_-_anyone_interested.3F) I formally propose Gonzo fan as co-director.
If anyone has any serious objections or doubts about whether he'll done a good job, please post here in the next few days, otherwise I'll be happy to welcome him on board. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like there are no objections, so I guess we've found our new co-delegate. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yay Gary King (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would be honored, thanks Dweller, Scorpion, Gary, and TRM. I don't know what the situation is with when all the changes in Directors will be, but I am ready to take over whenever. In the coming days I will talk with Dweller and get the low-down on what we will be doing, and maybe theorize on some ideas I had. Thanks again guys! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yay Gary King (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
New FLC director - Matthewedwards
Hello all. Just a quick note to confirm that with immediate effect, I have stepped down from the FL director post to be replaced by a more than adequate replacement in Matthew. I hope I left the FLC process better than I found it and I'm 100% positive that Matthew will do a fantastic job. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be the first to express gratitude. First for the stupendous amount of work TRM has done for FLs. Not just the administration, but the practically omnipresent reviewing, improving and cajoling. Second to Matthew, who'll do a great job. And third, I'm glad TRM can get back to article writing again before he disappears off globetrotting. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- TRM has been doing most of the FLC promotions. I wonder who will be doing more, now: Scorpion or Matthew? Or neither, and the backlog will be really, really huge? :) Gary King (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot TRM, you have done an amazing job! I have the utmost confidence Matthew will do a great job. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- TRM has been doing most of the FLC promotions. I wonder who will be doing more, now: Scorpion or Matthew? Or neither, and the backlog will be really, really huge? :) Gary King (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your hard work, TRM. You've left some big boots to fill. Gonzofan, I'm sure you'll fill mine without any problems. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, much appreciation to TRM and to Matthew and Gonzo who are stepping in. These are critical roles for improving WP's standards, and I can only imagine how much scrutiny and judgement the job requires. Tony (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange process. As I recall, we have *exactly* only one other director of a process on Wiki (at FA) and the directors here were appointed after widely announced polls to assure broad community input. So, now do y'all just pass the title along without broad consensus or discussion outside of FLC? That, along with this recent IRC development, makes me very uncomfortable and lowers the necessary gravitas attached to the delegation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Matthew was confirmed here. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- It followed this thread from mid August. It's been a while in the pipeline. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, there is no cabal, no one is out to destroy Wikipedia, IRC is not going to control everything, let's get over this whole disaster scenario you think is going to happen. And contrary to what seems to be your belief, Directors are not God-Kings and we don't need to have a process just for process sake. (see WP:PPP, WP:BURO, WP:TINC, WP:IAR). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy has a legitimate concern—I don't know how many discussions I've seen where someone questions Raul's authority because they don't know how he got his FA director position. It is to Matthew's benefit too that the process leading to his appointment be very transparent, so that he doesn't have to deal with all that *#!@ the first 500 times that someone questions his judgement calls. Luckily for him, this does appear to have been discussed pretty well. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree it was well discussed: at minimum, I wonder why Matthewedwards posted the link about the IRC channel all over Wiki, but no one ever managed to post to WT:FAC about new director elections. And, when one of the first things a new director does is as controversial as taking featured content business to IRC, that's not a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- What constitutes well discussed? The FLC regulars basically confirmed him as the new director with practically unanimous support. We don't want a big wiki-wide election; the process should be smooth and quiet. And as for the IRC channel, he's the messenger, not the proposer, so drop the mass conspiracy issue. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, take this in the best possible way. FLC is not FAC's "bitch (#7)." We don't need to go to you guys over at FAC before we do something. If you want to know whats going on over here, by all means watchlist the page. It's really easy. And as Seph BCR, Sandy get over the mass conspiracy, you are directly questioning User:The Rambling Man and User:Matthewedwards, and basically everyone here. Again, I want to stress to you, we do not need to run things by you before we do something. By all means, be involved with the discussion, but do not come complaining if you missed out. Also, stop lumping this whole IRC thing with Matt being a director, all he did was notify the community that there was a channel, which is basically the most responsible thing to do, because it makes the channel more transparent. Please, please stop blowing things out of proportion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The fact the discussion about a Featured content IRC is taking place at FAC indicates what the FAC regulars think of the rest of the Featured process. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, take this in the best possible way. FLC is not FAC's "bitch (#7)." We don't need to go to you guys over at FAC before we do something. If you want to know whats going on over here, by all means watchlist the page. It's really easy. And as Seph BCR, Sandy get over the mass conspiracy, you are directly questioning User:The Rambling Man and User:Matthewedwards, and basically everyone here. Again, I want to stress to you, we do not need to run things by you before we do something. By all means, be involved with the discussion, but do not come complaining if you missed out. Also, stop lumping this whole IRC thing with Matt being a director, all he did was notify the community that there was a channel, which is basically the most responsible thing to do, because it makes the channel more transparent. Please, please stop blowing things out of proportion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- The link about the featured content channel was posted "all over Wiki" (actually the talk pages of all seven Featured content project pages). The discussion about me becoming a FL director was held here because it really doesn't have much to do with FA. By saying what you did, it appears as if you'd like to have complete reign over then entire Featured process. The discussions about a new director were held here, on this talk page, where you or anyone else could have chimed in. It's not like they were conducted on IRC :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- What constitutes well discussed? The FLC regulars basically confirmed him as the new director with practically unanimous support. We don't want a big wiki-wide election; the process should be smooth and quiet. And as for the IRC channel, he's the messenger, not the proposer, so drop the mass conspiracy issue. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Karanaks, I really doubt Sandy is concerned about whether someone questions my judgement! :) The comments left on my talk page are enough to see that. The fact that another Featured content leader has questioned my judgement is enough to give everyone else the green light. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree it was well discussed: at minimum, I wonder why Matthewedwards posted the link about the IRC channel all over Wiki, but no one ever managed to post to WT:FAC about new director elections. And, when one of the first things a new director does is as controversial as taking featured content business to IRC, that's not a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy has a legitimate concern—I don't know how many discussions I've seen where someone questions Raul's authority because they don't know how he got his FA director position. It is to Matthew's benefit too that the process leading to his appointment be very transparent, so that he doesn't have to deal with all that *#!@ the first 500 times that someone questions his judgement calls. Luckily for him, this does appear to have been discussed pretty well. Karanacs (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sandy, there is no cabal, no one is out to destroy Wikipedia, IRC is not going to control everything, let's get over this whole disaster scenario you think is going to happen. And contrary to what seems to be your belief, Directors are not God-Kings and we don't need to have a process just for process sake. (see WP:PPP, WP:BURO, WP:TINC, WP:IAR). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- It followed this thread from mid August. It's been a while in the pipeline. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the use of such links has grown to be acceptable in the leads of FL nominations. Some WikiProjects (notably music, under discussion in film) are banning them. Why? Because when readers see solitary year links, they are highly unlikely to click on them. There is increasing support for encouraging editors to work the full link into the sentence on the first occurrence (almost always in the lead) of one of the year-in-X items, and thenceforth to use plain years without any link. The rationale, which I find compelling, is that readers are more likely to click on the gateway link towards the top, from which, of course, there's easy access to all sibling year-in-X links. Here are two examples of current nominations where I believe my edits improve the clarity and transparency of the linking. You may wish to compare these in display mode, too, by scrolling down.
Tony (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
New Featured content IRC channel
Following on from the creation of #wikipedia-en-FL connect for discussing the WP:Featured list process, a new IRC channel for discussing all Featured content has been created. #wikipedia-en-FC connect. Please see WP:IRC for more on using IRC with Wikipedia. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why do we need to fragment FC discussion onto off-wiki venues, exactly? --erachima talk 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Serious followup about this at WT:FAC: most concerned about what the heck is going on over here at lists lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Assessment
Where would I request an assessment of a list article I created? It's nowhere near FA or even GA, I just want it assessed at a basic level and to indicate what I need to do to improve it, and I can't seem to find the right place to ask. (for José Mojica Marins filmography). Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- You may be interested in Wikipedia:Peer Review! If all you want is truly an assessment, and not a review of the list, I would be able to help you out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Films will probably do an assessment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Gonzo just an assessment for now if you would. Films project would only assign it as a "list". Thanks. It's too young to review yet. Mjpresson (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I left some comments on the talk page. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes Gonzo just an assessment for now if you would. Films project would only assign it as a "list". Thanks. It's too young to review yet. Mjpresson (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Films will probably do an assessment. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Backlog, 2 nominations in need of reviewers
The Rambling Man left his position only two days ago, and I've just updated the backlog from six entries to twenty! At the moment, List of people with hepatitis C and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R are in desperate need of reviewers. Their FLC pages are Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R. Any feedback people can provide would be welcome, I'm sure. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Overlinking
So there's been some questions on the FLC for NBA All-Rookie Team. I absolutely hate the look of linking every team to the same page all the way down - the table is blue with all the links.
I see there was almost no discussion here and some discussion at OVERLINK about tables. That discussion hinges (to some extent) on the table being *sortable*, which somewhat makes sense, but only somewhat.
Can someone clue me in as to proper protocol? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unlink repeated links only if the table is not sortable. If the table is sortable, then we can't always tell which text appears at the top when the page is sorted, so all terms have to be linked in that case. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Naming conventions
A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Naming conventions for lists regarding the titles of lists. Please participate. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
completely contradicting guidelines for lists. Let's begin with the Lead section
Wikipedia:Lists#Lead_section or paragraph is completely contrary to what we require per Criterion 2, which points to WP:LEAD, which directs to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).
Wikipedia:Lead section#Provide an accessible overview says:
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)
In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.
But WP:Lists#Lead section or paragraph says:
Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list. For example:
- If the meaning of the list's title seems obvious, e.g. List of dog breeds, the article may open with a simple statement using wikilinks, e.g. "This is a list of dog breeds." (The inclusion criterion is that an item must be the name of a dog breed in order to be added to the list).
- If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title, e.g. "This is a list of philosophers working in the Christian tradition in Western Europe during the medieval period. See also scholasticism."
- Non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should also be explained in its lead section.
- Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article (e.g. "republic") and a list complementary to that topic (e.g. "List of republics").
Review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for further clarification.
I did review Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria, and it says:
Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or who should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources. Non-obvious characteristics of the list, for instance regarding the list structure, should also be explained in the lead section.
When deciding what to include on a list, ask yourself:
- If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
- Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
- Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert. Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles; instead consider listing them in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject.
If a complete list is feasible in 32K, and could be useful, go for a complete list. Otherwise, you need to make sure section editing is enabled or you may want to build a selected list.
It is useful to start each list with a sentence describing the content and scope of the list. For complete lists:
- This is a complete list of Xs.
For partial/selected lists:
- This is a selected list of Xs. Xs listed here should be (selection criteria).
When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include the "See also" section, that shows related lists and articles, after the introduction and before the list.
So we have two telling us to start lists with "This is a list of....", and the other one deferring to them. As well as observing WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, etc, lists have to follow WP:Lists, WP:Stand-alone lists, WP:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). That's a hell of a lot of extra pages that don't align with each other. Is it any wonder why some people "see no discernable improvement in quality [here] over recent months" and that the quality of Featured lists still isn't as high as it should be, when we can't agree with our guidelines on how to even introduce it?
It isn't just the lead sections that are contradicting each other, it seems to be pretty much everything. Wikipedia is constantly changing and we have to ensure that our guidelines change with it, because as we know from the number of reviewers and nominators to FLC, lists are a niche subject and we're not going to find many other people who are as interested as we are. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed that contradiction from the lead section section at Lists when this was raised a while ago by TRM. And guess who's lurking there to revert it (10 days ago)—our old friend of progress, Francis Shonken. I've rewritten it (with a sense of deja vu until I looked at the history): I'll need back-up there, please. Francis Shonken has serious ownership issues with several style and policy pages, and has a long track-record of reverting any change for the better. Tony (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)