Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

The closure log edit · history · watch · refresh 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. FLC Promoted List of games by Supermassive Games (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of erinaceids (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) Ireland women's cricket team record by opponent (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of World Heritage Sites in Zimbabwe (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of Cobra Kai episodes (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of James McAvoy performances (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1990 (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of constituencies of the Mizoram Legislative Assembly (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) Unsuccessful List of Colorado state symbols (FLC) – No consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of heads of government of Liechtenstein (FLC) – No consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) Critical Role (campaign two) (FLC) – No consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) 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 List of Washington Commanders seasons (FLRC) – Nominator concerns addressed, no votes to remove. (PresN) List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates (FLRC) – Nominator concerns addressed, no votes to remove. (PresN) Delisted None FLRCs of special note None

Featured content dispatch workshop

2014 Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism 2013 Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? 2010 Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3 Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2 Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1 Mar 15: GA Sweeps end Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards 2009 Nov 2: Inner German border Oct 12: Sounds May 11: WP Birds May 4: Featured lists Apr 20: Valued pictures Apr 13: Plagiarism Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT Feb 23: 100 FS approaches Feb 16: How busy was 2008? Feb 8: April Fools 2009 Jan 31: In the News Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders Jan 10: December themed page Jan 3: Featured list writers 2008 Nov 24: Featured article writers Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest Oct 13: Latest on featured articles Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August Sep 1: Featured topics Aug 25: Interview with Mav Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article Aug 11: Reviewing free images Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July Jul 28: Find reliable sources online Jul 21: History of the FA process Jul 14: Rick Block interview Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale Jun 9: Main page day Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May May 26: Featured sounds May 19: Good article milestone May 12: Changes at Featured lists May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities May 2 (late): Did You Know Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes Apr 14: FA milestone Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence Mar 31: Featured content overview Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter Mar 17: Changes at peer review Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration Mar 3: April Fools mainpage Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity Feb 11: Great saves at FAR Feb 4: New methods to find FACs Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Portal:Featured lists/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer.

What to do when nominator gets banned?

Concerning the FLC, of List of people on stamps of Azerbaijan. The nominator of the FLC, User:Twilight Chill has been topic banned from Azerbaijan related articles and will therefore not be able to respond to comments. Twilight Chill is also the author (User:Brandmeister is the same as Twilight Chill) of the list. Should the FLC be postponed, cancelled or just continue as it does? bamse (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone is prepared to continue making changes then it continues. If we don't hear anything in the next week or so (and I've just added a heap of comments there) then we'll withdraw the nomination. It's not up to FLC to decide who can and who cannot edit Wikipedia... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. bamse (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will blue-pencil this list in the next days. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

List of heads of state of the Soviet Union

Would any of you care to review the List of heads of state of the Soviet Union list for me? It may fail due to lack of reviewer interest, can somebody just review the list. If so thanks, it's appreciated. --TIAYN (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of nominations allowed at once

Hey I just want to clarify something; as I understand it, each user is only allowed to have one FLC open at once. If someone has a co-nominator for their lists, how many are they allowed to maintain at once provided the co-nominator(s) is (or are) active and helps out with the FLC? Nomader ^(Talk) 05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per the instructions,

A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

A nominator and co-nominator are considered the same in this respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Nomader ^(Talk) 18:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Grammy Award for Best Contemporary R&B Album

This nomination was a bit complicated, but I believe all concerns have been addressed and I tally five "support" votes. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured list on Main page

Just to let every one here know, talk is going on about changes to the main page again, mostly about adding a Featured Sound section. I suggested while they are at it consider finally adding Featured Lists too. There is a discussion going on Here and i think some regular FL contributors input would be greatly appreciated. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If featured lists were to be featured on the main page, I'm pretty sure we could just list the lead in a small section instead of showing the actual list. Shouldn't be too difficult, I'd think. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is only about Featured sounds. So if we want a section for FLs, we would have start a separate proposal.—Chris!_c/t 06:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that-- I'm pretty sure the idea of bringing FLs to the main page before has been met with some contention in the past. We'd have to create a viable way for FLs to be brought up there, and even then I'm not sure if it would garner a lot of support. Nomader ^(Talk) 06:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have started a proposal at Talk:Main page, it would be nice to get the opinions of some of our regular contributors over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue. I'll be adding my tuppence. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look as well. There are some great FLs that deserve some attention. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposal #1

I think the best thing to do is to do the brainstorming here, as a list-oriented community, and once we have a well-defined proposal, take it to the main page talk. —WFC— 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal capped; I'm 100% behind the one below

I have deliberately avoided stating how we would select a given week's specific main list, beyond designating topics. That process would inevitably be complicated, but more importantly has the potential to derail this entire process if focussed on too early. Therefore, I believe that we should not go into points systems or whatnot until we have consensus on the general system. Vision: a small, TFA style lead paragraph + picture for one list per week, followed by 2-3 DYK style entries without pictures. All 3-4 lists in a given day should be on different topic. Over a period of time we should make sure that we carefully balance the need to give fair representation to less-covered topics, with the fact that a high proportion of our lists fall into a relatively narrow range of subjects. First stab at the mechanics: 80% of the work will be choosing the lead list. There are 10 main topics at WP:FL: Arts, Engineering and technology, Everyday life, Geography and places, History, Language and linguistics, Mathematics, Natural sciences, Philosophy and Religion, and Social Sciences and Society. For the purposes of the lead list, I propose that we work in a 13-week (3 month) cycle. Mathematics should merge with Natural Sciences based on size, giving us 9 main topics, while Arts and Everyday Life should each have two slots in a cycle. The 12th week would be exclusively for underrepresented sup-topics of the 7 main topics that have one slot. Note that underepresented sub-topics would therefore have two opportunities in a cycle; their topic's week, and the 12th week. The 13th week is deliberately left ambiguous at launch, so that we have room for manouevre when the process is in its infancy. It's there if we need it, if not we go to a 12-week cycle. So: the main lists over thirteen weeks would go something like: 1. Arts 2. Engineering and technology 3. Geography and places 4. Everyday life 5. History 6. Language and linguistics 7. Arts 8. Maths/natural sciences 9. Philosophy and religion 10. Everyday life 11. Social sciences and society 12. Underrepresented sub-topics 13. ??? For the DYK style part, previous DYKs and previous "headline" lists would be excluded (as we have 2,000 lists and growing, and 150-200 spaces a year). A delegate would pick 2-3 DYKs from different topics to one another and the main list. Being a sub-list should preclude the list from becoming a "headliner" for a long time (but not indefinitely), so for this reason the original FL nominators should be informed at an early stage, giving them the opportunity to decline selection if they want (rare, but conceivable) and hopefully en-list their help. Once the picks are finalised, a small task force of FL regulars would make any necessary fixes and suggest blurbs, with the final say resting with the delegate. All of this could be done as far in advance as we liked; we could easily build up a pool of these entries. I would tentatively suggest that everyday life is usually included, to help alleviate the bottleneck that articles there are inevitably going to face. It's not perfect, but initial thoughts? —WFC— 03:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Hmm... I just want to clarify a few points and give some suggestions: Would previous DYK lists be excluded form being the featured headline list? Would the 2-3 other lists be listed in the format of a DYK (i.e. "... did you know that the New Jersey Devils have won three Stanley cups?) or would we go with some other unique format? I'd love to be able to differentiate ourselves from DYK in some way, but I understand if it'd be easier to go with DYK style blurbs for our articles. I think if a list is listed in this "DYK-style blurb", it should be eliminated from consideration as a headline article. Judging by the fact that it will no longer be given priority, unless there's a large exception, they shouldn't be brought back as there will be so many other lists behind them. I just have to admit, the idea of "Featured List Wednesdays" is really awesome. Putting that out there. Nomader (Talk) 07:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Only excluded from being a smaller one. It's rare that a list makes it as a DYK, and we would then be consistent with articles. A featured article couldn't be a DYK twice, but could be a DYK and later a TFA. By "DYK-style blurb", I'm thinking more in terms of length and the overall aim; being a short, sharp, catchy introduction. I definitely don't think we should introduce a list with "Did you know... that" Perhaps if we have some sort of "opt-out" system, that would work. I.e. if someone feels that a certain list has a prose section worthy of top billing one day (be they the original editor or a director/delegate/insert title here planning ahead for difficult to fill topics), the list won't end up there. That's the least dramatic way I can think of doing it. As an example, of the three FLs I've gotten promoted so far (plus the one that I'm one creation spree away from nominating), I would only choose to opt List of Watford F.C. seasons out. And yes, FL Wednesday sounds awesome. —WFC— 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I tend to agree, the tentative suggestions at Talk:Main page for FL Wednesday are the ones I'd advocate. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposal #2 (a.k.a. "walk before run")

My view right now is relatively simple.

1. We use the proposed featured sound proposal, but on Wednesday rather than Sat/Sun.
2. We write a blurb in exactly the same way featured articles on the main page have.
3. We (initially) select the list to be featured a few weeks in advance to allow for polishing etc, and the selection (initially) is by the directors. This may evolve into the current TFA model of suggestions, but as I said in the title, walk before run.
4. We absolutely guarantee the community that lists we select will be verifiable, MOS-compliant (including ACCESS etc) etc etc and keep standards absolutely tip-top.

I think we have a great bunch of ideas in the section above, but I'm just focused on getting featured lists on the mainpage and if that means keeping it totally simple for the time being, so be it. We also get the coding of the front page effectively free as User:Adam Cuerden will be coding up the featured sound mods, and if we keep in-line with that, he'll code it with expansion to include FLs in mind too. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is what we should do now, walk before run. It is not even a sure thing that FLs will be on the main page.—Chris!_c/t 20:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• On reflection, as a starting point I think you're right. Keep it simple: one a week until we're up and running. Medium term, I think we could move to a rotation system, where each list is on for 6 hours. Directors aren't going to pick a list that's sub-standard to start with, so as long as we are confident that we have the ability to meet WP:V, four per week should be manageable. —WFC— 23:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think this seems like a great direction to move first. Put your toes in the water before you jump in, I guess. I think it's important that the lists we feature though definitely get held to a high standard, we really need to check for WP:ACCESS concerns and the like. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• As Adam says, we need to be pro-active about this if we want to strike while the iron is hot. I've done a rough draft of one of my lists here. I think we need at least half a dozen samples, that are diverse in terms of field and (while accepting that there may be an inevitable degree of systemic bias towards English-speaking countries) geographic interest. I've done a sports list because that's what I know, but we need to give assurances that FL Wednesdays will not be dominated by sports, music and videogame minutiae (and for that reason it might be a good idea not to use mine). Perhaps if TRM were to select half a dozen decent lists that fit that criteria, and see if the original FL nominators would be willing to draft sample blurbs of ~1000 characters. If they aren't, we can always divide the work between ourselves. —WFC— 08:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, how about the following:
  • Bodley's Librarian - User:Bencherlite
  • List of demolished places of worship in Brighton and Hove - User:Hassocks5489
  • List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders - User:RexxS
  • List of leaders of the Soviet Union - User:Trust Is All You Need
  • List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire - User:White Shadows
  • List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba - User:Grsz11
  • These are simply "different" (i.e. not sports/discogs/awards) lists to show some of the diversity we have around the project. I'll try to get round to letting the nominators know but have a busy day ahead, so if someone else could step in, that'd be great...! Any other suggestions would be good too... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there's a vote of confidence in Bodley's Librarian (and from a Cambridge man too!) It is already in main page blurb style at Portal:University of Oxford/Selected article/10. Depending on how much space we've got, it might have to be trimmed a bit, but it's the size of an average TFA blurb (1,215 characters; WP:TFAR suggests 1,200, and today's TFA is 1,377). Bencherlite^Talk 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've done the notifications (didn't realise you'd already replied Bencherlite!). I think ~1000 characters would be roughly the target. Judging by the current main page, my guess is that we would get about as much space vertically as TFA, but possibly less horizontally, and TFA uses 1200 characters. —WFC— 10:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Got it down to 1,000 characters exactly (excluding "more..."!) at User:Bencherlite/TFA blurbs. Bencherlite^Talk 10:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notifications WFC. I think we should give it 48 hours for people to respond and if not, then either write the blurbs ourselves or select different starting lists. Once that's done, and once the featured sound proposal looks stable (in terms of support) then we'll move onto Talk:Main page with our own proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in total support of using the lists as we've described in this section. I think in the future though after the initial batch, we should adopt portions of WFC's proposal above, such as a rotating system through each type of list each week. But these are just minor semantics; the most important thing is that the FL proposal work, and it seems like this does more than the trick. Good work everyone, and I'm fully behind this. Nomader ^(Talk) 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This all looks promising so far. I'll delve into this further today. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To give you somewhere to try things out I've created a page at User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo where you can get an idea of how things might look. That page transcludes the page User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Content where you can place pictures, text, etc. using ordinary wiki-markup. I've copied the blurb for Bodley's Librarian there as a trial. Please don't assume that the sizes I've used are precise representations of how the layout will turn out when Adam actually does the coding. I expect he will follow the current mainpage coding by using nested tables to get the desired effect (which I haven't – so my quick and dirty mock-up won't behave the same way when text overflows, for example). I'd encourage you to replace the contents of User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Content with other candidate lists to try out how they might look. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: If others are going to look at it, I might as well mimic the MainPage as closely as I can. --RexxS (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(←)This is a very exciting proposal; well done to everybody who has got this moving so quickly! I appreciate the suggestion of using List of demolished places of worship in Brighton and Hove as one of the early lists; I shall write a blurb in the next 24 hours (probably in one of my many sandboxes) and supply a link. I'll also transclude it into RexxS's Demo page. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Follow-up: I've put a sample blurb (~1,100 chars) straight into User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Content. It's not great; fresh eyes needed! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes! Ditto. This is so necessary and such a good proposal. If anyone wants a workup on a sports list (since there aren't any in the samples list), I'll volunteer. — KV5 • Talk • 00:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a couple of high-quality sports blurbs up our sleeves is the right way to go (possibly music as well). It certainly wouldn't be time wasted, as at some point in the future the lists would probably be in contention for the main page. But I don't think we should use them in the initial sample, unless we encounter opposition on the grounds that "while the examples are good, our endless sporting and music minutiae wouldn't reach anything like this standard". My view is that half of the battle will be convincing the uninitiated that while sport is well represented, FLC is far more diverse than that. —WFC— 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that– and not to block all of my featured list contributions for the foreseeable future, but I think we should make sure not to put up video game lists at least for a good amount of time until the general format for lists is approved. They tend not to go down too well on the main page... Nomader ^(Talk) 03:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat inclined not to show the ones everyone knows you have, simply to surprise people with how varied and broad you actually are. Or, if you do include them, put them second-to-last. (I think people tend to scrutinise the last item on the list a bit more, like the teachers who only read the first and last page of an essay. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(just my 2 cents) As the main writer of one of the above mentioned lists, I would personally love to see it on the main page. Most FLs that I come across now a-days are worthy of a main page appearance and I would support a motion to add them in.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear: I meant that the selected set of examples may as well leave out lists of types that FLs are accused of being nothing but. Obviously, I'm not saying well-written lists should be excluded from the main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Where are we supposed to do blurbs if we are going to work them up for specific articles? — KV5 • Talk • 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • At the moment it seems to be individual user's subpages. I guess there will eventually be a dedicated area, but I don't think one should be set up yet, for the same reasons as my previous comment. If we set up a new area as a free-for-all at this stage, and most of the submissions are popular culture, it would be used as a stick to beat this proposal with. —WFC— 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    • OK. I'd appreciate comments if anyone has them: User:Killervogel5/MainPageFLPrep is my working space right now. — KV5 • Talk • 02:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I think your picture might be set to too small a size. It looks different when it's on a page next to a FP. User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo2 - what do you think? --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • The blurb and image themselves look great. —WFC— 03:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I increased the picture to 175px. It's actually a surprisingly HQ image of a baseball award, which we are hard-pressed to find, so it didn't suffer from the increase. — KV5 • Talk • 13:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
        • RexxS: Perhaps text wrapping would make the original image size seem somewhat more appropriate? —WFC— 03:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree it probably would, but currently the Main Page template uses two cells of a layout table to hold the image and the text separately for the Featured Picture block, so text wrapping can't happen. View the Main Page in a narrow browser window and you'll see what I mean. I've merely copied the same technique to display what is my best guess at the likely layout. We probably need to decide whether we would like to have text wrapping for our 45% of the block before Adam starts coding, but beware of the effect in a narrow browser window if we decide to wrap the text and the FP folk decide to leave their part unwrapped. I've knocked up what you suggest, so have a look at how User:RexxS/MainPageFL-Demo3 behaves as you make your browser window narrower. I suspect that those using 1280px wide screens may not like the effect. --RexxS (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Ahh, I'm with you now. Wasn't noticeable until you said because of the size of the current FP. Hopefully Adam will be able to shed some light. Potential technical necessity aside, I'd rather we weren't competing with FP on image size though. —WFC— 04:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Brief note

Compared with Featured sounds, video, and pictures, with all the interesting formatting, Lists are easy. I just make it so you can turn off the formatting for the other stuff, then sit back and let you type in whatever you want. ;) For example, the code for setting up a list might look something like:

|type=List |description='''Featured list for Main Page''' is a list that... we have to describe in its entirety, including all formatting.

I suspect that's all you really need, to be honest; I mean, the box around it is going to be the same for all featured content types, so I just need to give you control over what goes in the box. That said, if you want me to include, say, an easy way to add a picture, please let me know.

By the way, optional proposal, but I was thinking that for the first week or so after it goes on the main page, we might want to up the number of sounds and lists, to celebrate, say 4 lists alternating with 4 sounds, before returning to the normal schedule. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than we would never, ever start a list intro with "... is a list ...", of course!!! A picture would be important. Most, if not all FLs have at least a lead image. And the "celebration" week sounds good too... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Would the same format as FA pictures suit (only right aligned, perhaps)? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it should work out fine. We'll probably have to see how it will look, but it should pretty much be the same format. My main question though is that for most featured articles, there is a bold title in the lead which the main page links to (i.e. Astronomy is the study...). Obviously, WP:FL rejects this idea of using "This is a list of all of the Maryland birds", as has been confirmed through multiple FLCs. So how do we get users from looking at the list to the article? Do we put a title above it somehow and then put the lead below? Nomader ^(Talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's for you to decide. I'll provide coding support, if needed. See, the hard part of the coding is all the stuff that has to be done anyway for the FS/FP proposal, so it'd be very hard for you to make any feature requests that wouldn't be trivial to code in comparison. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand. All we really need is something similar to what FA already has for use on Wednesdays; we can figure out the title problem when we come to it with some sort of Wikicode workaround. Thanks for the help with the coding, Adam. Nomader ^(Talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Could do the linking like the FPs do, just pick a good set of words early on and link it. Most lists have some kind of decent phrase in the first couple sentences. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And there's always the fallback of "(more ...)" at the end of the piece as well. Bodley's Librarian blurb uses that in addition to a link in the first sentence. Folks will have to decide if they are happy with that stylistically, of course. --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are we?

Hello everyone. Sorry I've been a bit out of the loop for the last day or so, but trying to catch up and ensure our approach is coherent and easy to follow by those outside the project. To that end, I've created a sandbox in my own user space (User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates) where I think it would be best to add all possible candidates for blurbs that we can take to Talk:Main page. The six examples I gave above (along with WFC's) if possible should be transcluded/added to that sandbox, along, of course, with anyone else who wishes to put forward a candidate for us to show the rest of the community that we're not "just a bunch of stats".

Speaking with Adam Cuerden, it would seem most likely that we'll be looking to make the main proposal at the main page midway through next week, by which time I hope we'll have three directors in place, and at least half a dozen (more would be better!) examples of what we're capable of doing. So, if everyone can pull together and get these examples up and running by 22 February, then I think we stand a very, very good chance of a positive outcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually go with KV's over mine, purely on the grounds that if we're going to use a sports list, we should go for the one with the broadest appeal. —WFC— 13:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've even got carried away and done my own blurb there. Any comments gratefully received! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it okay for us mere mortals to edit there? If so, I'll get cracking on porting some of the more leads that lend themselves to blurbs more easily, and we can copy-edit them collectively. —WFC— 13:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, my sandbox is an open house, bring a blurb, hors-d'oeuvres provided... As for one sports over another, let's just blurb-up on the sandbox and decide from there on. I see no harm in being overqualified for main page...! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to encourage everyone to comment on the current write-ups at TRM's FL candidate page. The more we critique and comment, the better type of proposal we can put forward to the community. And at TRM's slight encouragement, I've put up a video game list as one of the candidates. I mean, what would a mainpage be like without video games? Great work on the blurbs so far, everyone. Nomader ^(Talk) 15:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Any more for any more...

I'm in the mindset to invite a few more blurbs. Also, I'd like to encourage any comments on what else could go wrong when we nominate this proposal at Talk:Main page. On my talk page for this, WFCforLife has left a few ideas. Anything else would be great, and any comments in response to the stuff there too.

As for including a few more lists, I'd like to suggest these get added to our list of diversity at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates‎...

• List of Denver RTD light rail stations - User:Patriarca12
• List of longest streams of Oregon - User:Finetooth & User:Little Mountain 5
• List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall - User:Jim Sweeney
• List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK) - User:Rambo's Revenge
• Listed buildings in Rivington - User:J3Mrs
• Gordon Bennett Cup (ballooning) - User:The Rambling Man (seems egotistical, I know, but I think it really, really hits at the diversity thing...)

If we can add these to the ones already on the talkpage, and get decent blurbs in place, we have around four months of main page FLs already. If I'm going too far, let me know, but I think it's best to show our intent, and show we mean what we say. Let me know... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also had some suggestions:

• List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show - User:Miyagawa
• List of Chinese inventions - User:Drewcifer3000
• Shooting thaler - User:RHM22
• List of men's major championships winning golfers - User:NapHit
• List of invasive species in the Everglades - User:Moni3

—Chris!_c/t 20:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Love pretty much all of the above examples. I think List of invasive species in the Everglades is of particular note, being a dynamic list. —WFC— 10:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Any chance you could ping these nominators WFC? Once again I'm being stretched a little at work... If not, no worries and I'll try to get round to it later. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy to draw up a blurb for the Westminster list. This is a great idea that I had no idea was progressing, and I'm very honoured that one of my articles has been highlighted so early in the process. Miyagawa (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the author of Shooting thaler, listed above, and I fully support this idea. Those who write FLs are tasked with as much work and scrutiny as any FA writer. Unfortunately, though, I would like to remove Shooting thaler from the list of possible main page candidates. I'm very proud of the list, but the images still need to receive the ok from the OTRS team. For this reason, I would hate to see the images in the list distract critics and fans alike from the wonderful idea of featuring an FL on the main page. Let me know if there's anything else I might be able to do to help get this project off the ground, though. Good luck!-RHM22 (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I created an Userbox for those who support the proposal. Just add {{User:RHM22/FLbox}} to your userpage.-RHM22 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello all. I am the author of the List of Denver RTD light rail stations and agree that this is a fantastic idea! FLs have to meet strict criteria and are more than appropriate on the main page. Plus, I personally think they are overdue for inclusion as visitors can more quickly digest a FL than a FA in getting a complete impression of the topic at hand. I am more than happy to give it a shot and draw up a blurb for the Denver RTD list. Patriarca12 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the main author and co-nominator of List of longest streams of Oregon, a collaborative effort involving several other editors. I'd be happy to prepare a blurb for potential main-page consideration by Raul654 and I'll do that later today. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

General discussion

Not sure where to put this, but the proposal is popping all over my watchlist, so I'll put it here in a new section at the bottom. I don't support the inclusion of more marginal content on the mainpage (Featured sounds) and don't feel that the Featured Sounds process is up to snuff yet, while Featured pictures used to promote original research (don't know if that is still occurring), but since they are no worse than DYK, which routinely puts plagiarism on the main page, I haven't opposed that proposal. As long as they're stuck on the bottom of the mainpage, they're doing no more harm than DYK, which at least promotes the creation of new articles, albeit often plagiarized. WRT Featured Lists, they are generally higher quality than Sounds or Pictures, and the process has matured, but I suspect you all will have better luck with this proposal if you instead frame it as Featured Lists you will put forward to Raul654 (who has not been pinged in to this discussion, which I will do next) for his choice on the mainpage, similar to WP:TFA/R, rather than proposing selection by another group of editors. I will oppose inclusion of Featured Lists if they circumvent entirely Raul's competent management of the mainpage. I do have a general concern that, in the environment of declining editorship, we're seeing more and more resources drained from Featured Articles, but that's not the fault of Lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I may be mistaken, but I believe our grouping of lists isn't our picking what we want on the main page, but instead precisely what you're describing. We're just trying to pick out the best and brightest examples to be judged on via a TFA-style process. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, in that case, I'm glad to hear it! If the proposal gains traction, I don't see any reason we couldn't adapt the already-existing page at WP:TFA/R for inclusion of Lists once a week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And while my initial suggestion was that the FL directors would select lists for the first few weeks (i.e. the first four or so), we'd move to the TFA/R model eventually. What we don't want to do is over-complicate our initial chance at adding more featured and varied featured material to the main page by overcomplicating our newly-nurtured ideas. I seem to recall that even Raul654 selects several main page FAs as only five at a time are allowed at TFA/R? The directors would be doing nothing other than hand picking a few to start with, then once the concept has matured, we'll move onwards and upwards. I certainly didn't want to exclude Raul, although why he needs to be directly included, I'm not sure, I think the idea of the FL community helping to select their most accomplished works for the mainpage will work fine. And I really didn't even imagine the idea of draining resources from FA, that's certainly not on our agenda one iota. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As I mentioned above, I haven't concerned myself with either Featured pictures or Featured sounds being on the mainpage, as they are occuyping space at the bottom of the page and are no worse than DYK. Whether you would want to be part of Raul's mainpage scheduling would then be related to whether you are proposing creating 1) yet another new section of the main page, 2) sharing space at the bottom with Picture and Sounds, or 3) asking for a semi-regular slot in the FA space. My suggestion is that, if you want a weekly slot with FA, then you would want to bring Raul into the discussion, and that would be joined with the WP:TFA/R process. I would oppose FLs taking space from FA unless Raul is scheduling it, since his oversight has been exceptional there, there has never been a mistake, and it's a smoothly functioning process. It's a question of design-- where you are proposing to get your space, or with whom you will be sharing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah, okay, well that's easy, we never proposed to take over an FA spot. Not for a moment. We always said we'd share the second FP space on Wednesdays only. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

New director?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello FLC folks. As many of you are aware, User:Giants2008 has done a sterling job in stepping in as an FLC delegate when both Dabomb87 and me are too busy to give FLC the attention it deserves. I'm here to propose that we ask Giants to take the role on formally, so that we have three directors. There are a couple of reasons for this, firstly it seems me and DB87 have less available time to dedicate to the process, and secondly (if we're really lucky) we may start to get lists featured on the main page. These things combined could use another pair of hands, and Giants is the ideal candidate. I've already asked him if he'd be amenable to the idea, and he said he was, contingent on the community supporting this decision. So, community, please forthwith show your support (or otherwise) in favour of Giants2008 becoming a third Featured List director. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(post-note note: I'll close this down in 72 hours or so, there's no major drama here, I [and Giants] want to do this transparently... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

1. "Per nominator"! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Giants is ideal. Methinks workload will increase too if the main page issue works out. Jujutacular ^talk 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Support I thought he was already a director, lol.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support per the excellent reasons about to be given by the next person offering support. Bencherlite^Talk 18:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Support best man for the job. If the current directors feel they need more hands for the work, they should of course be granted that. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Support ditto. Courcelles 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Support no reason to oppose—Chris!_c/t 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Fine with me. The only issue this could bring is he might be less prone to vote so he can ultimately close the FLCs. Heh. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   I agree that on the face of it, that could be an issue, but I've closed a few FLCs that I've voted in, without too many complaints (!) so hopefully the same grace would be applied to Giants. As long as there's no clear COI, no problem in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Directorship wouldn't have to mean a reduction in his level of commenting (short of a vote), and any decrease in his voting will I hope be matched by increased voting by TRM and Dabomb (if they wish) since there will now be two people available to close the discussion not one. Bencherlite^Talk 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

   Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

9. Support Great editor, no reason to oppose. Looks like there's strong consensus in favor. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
10. In my eyes, Giants has been as good as director for the past couple of years anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Strongest possible support — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Support. I'm usually a fan of detailed rationales, but in this case the reasons are plain for all to see. —WFC— 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - He's more than well equipped for the job and I'd imagine there wouldn't be as much of a backlog as there is now. Afro (Talk) 08:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
14. SupportSounds great. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Support – Guys don't think I'm mad or something, but last night, I was thinking how busy you guys (Rambling Man and Dabomb87) are these days. There are plenty of FLC and FLRC to do. Giants2008 is a very reliable person, and I support him becoming a delegate. – Novice7 (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Support, the candidate seems like a more than appropriate/accomplished editor. There is plenty of work to go around and surely it will speed up the processes? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Support—fully confident he'd do an excellent job. –Grondemar 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Congrats, Giants! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Post-discussion support. I really need to keep a closer eye on FLC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)