Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Should we have a FL director?

At the above request, this question should at least be under its own heading. It would be good to determine whether the WP:FL community thinks it should have a Director, before we propose it to the wider community. Thus, here is the question to determine: Should we have a FL director? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)

• Support. I think it is in the best interests of WP:FL to have a director, this would help streamline the process, while also making it harder for "bad" less then stellar lists to be pushed through WP:FLC, while also making it easier by only having one/two people close lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7) Comment changed 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support I support the idea. I'm sure most people will. The bigger question is who will be the director(s). Also, I resent the fact that a list can be "bad", because any article or list on Wikipedia can be improved if given the care and if nurtured well :p Gary King (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Weak Support not so much because I think it will dramatically improve the quality of the lists, but because we basically already have such a system (only a couple editors regularly close FLCs). An FL director of some sort would help avoid the occasional closed-FLC controversy, but I'm not convinced this will improve the quality of lists all that much. That kind of thing is better left to improvements in the criteria and a cultivation of a tough-as-nails FLC culture. But hey, prove me wrong! Drewcifer (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • It'd probably help if FLC had more active people than it does now. It's not as glamorous as it used to be... Gary King (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• As the operator of the bot handling closes, I would prefer some sort of whitelist to avoid situations like this. Gimmetrow 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
  • Semi-protection could do the trick, too, but yeah, a whitelist would be more appropriate once we deal with this whole FLC director situation. Gary King (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• I support thinking about having a director, although I think that we should address the problems with the criteria first. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support—One or two? I think two is more practicable, given that people need to take time off Wiki occasionally. It also gives greater flexibility where there may be conflict-of-interest issues for one or the other. Tony (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7) PS I put a brief note and link to here at VP. Tony (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support I have always said that there needs to be an FL Director. I would also suggest that there should be two, though I would prefer to clean up the criteria first. Woody (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support as Woody suggests, two + tighter criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Neutral I've never really thought that the process needed a director, but if that's what everyone else wants, then I can agree to it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support. It has to be wrong that a list can be starred as the best that Wikipedia has to offer on the basis of nom plus three supports offering no review or comment. Regardless of the adequacy of the current criteria, the interests of Wikipedia as a whole require the award of a star to be the result of a thorough review, and if having directors would ensure it got a thorough review (even if the lack of active reviewers meant the list waiting at FLC till hell froze over before it got one) then I'm all for it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support I've thought about this for a while, and I thin it'd be a great idea. I agree with Tony1 in that there should be two. The question is who? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support, indispensable, without it, FL can be "vote-stacked" and there is no overriding authority who can decide if something is a list or article, and no doubt in my mind that the two candidates should come from the list of names who I've seen most frequently associated with FLC, but who also understand standards and procedures at FAC (so FLC can move that direction): Colin, Scorpion0422, The Rambling Man and Woody. Dweller is another editor active at FLC who also understands FAC and the direction FLC might need to move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support - two please. --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support and agree that two directors would be preferable. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support and yes, two is good. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support, agree that two is good. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support - Two, just like the Consuls of Rome : ) - jc37 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)
• Support and change the flexibility of the suggestions of how long to keep nominations open and when to promote. If a list is ready, it's ready, if it's not, it's not. A full-time director (or two) would be able to see that on a longer-term, individual case-by-case basis. Peanut4 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support and two sounds like a good idea...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Works well at FAC. Though I think that that there should be some way to break disagreements among directors, either elect 3 so they can vote or if 2 are elected make one director, and one vice director. -Ravedave (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  I'd envisaged that the directors wouldn't come into conflict over individual archive/promote decisions, and that they'd embark on a process of allocating the nominations between them on whatever basis they see fit. One might ask the other for a second opinion from time to time, and they will probably want to discuss general practice on a regular basis, at least until things are ironed out and running smoothly. If there were occasionally disagreementa, it should be possible to resolve them amicably. That is in the spirit of the project, and is the case between Raul, Sandy and Marskell at FAC and FAR/C. Tony (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  I don't know how Joelr31 and Marskell divvy up the work at FAR, but Raul and I do not correspond off-Wiki about FAC promotions, have any pre-set agreement, nor have any need to figure out how to divvy up the work. It just works (we had one edit conflict one time because FAC was backlogged while I was traveling, and we both tried to clear some out at the same time). If I am about to close something controversial, or if I'm unsure, I post to Raul's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that elections run for two weeks from today, and that we ask User:Raul654 to close the vote and appoint the directors at that time. Any other ideas ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Just a suggestion, but for future runs, I'd suggest 1 week rather than 2. - jc37 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

It's not set in stone yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Noting (for posterity) that Tony promulgated this proposal at several other featured process pages and at the Village Pump: [1][2][3][4]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Add one: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed it but there doesn't seem to be a specific period of office for the appointments. Presumably we are talking about annual elections? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I responded to that below. Personally, I don't feel the need for "term limits". Someone could burn out or need to step aside in six months, or still be going strong in two years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

All the more reason to have a fixed term :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

My assumption was an indefinite term, until the people decide to form a revolution and demand for a new FLC director. Gary King (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

That's a really bad way of doing it :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I know, but that's what I assumed how it would work. Isn't that how it works at FAC? Or are there really terms? :| Gary King (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

This one doesn't have to be modelled on FAC in every respect. The main problem with the "revolution to replace the director/s" route is the bad feeling and ruffled feathers it might/would generate. There's something very calm and unemotional about electing people on a regular basis. It may also be a blessing in disguise: it means that the actual director can see an end in sight and, even if their interest is flagging, will stick with it to the next election so as not to let people down. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm fine either way, but which directors on Wikipedia have terms? Gary King (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only one director on Wiki now (Raul), so that's an N=1 question. ArbCom members have terms, and I believe Project Coordinators have terms. Roger is right; FLC doesn't have to pattern everything after FAC. I'm fine either way, although I don't see the need for terms. That should be an internal FLC decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to have terms because I'm sure most of the time, we'd just elect the same person again if they did a great job the first time around. This is especially true if we have no one else that has done the job before them that we can use as a comparison. Gary King (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's right to keep re-electing someone who is doing a great job. What's wrong is to elect someone to a job for life because they might do a great job. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Roger that this doesn't at all have to be modelled on FAC (although let's steal from them and any other feature-content process any bits we feel are appropriate). I also agree with Gary that fixed terms for the directors are unnecessary. While fixed terms would guarantee fresh blood at predictable intervals, they would carry the risk of the pandering, ducking and swaying that electoral politics can foster, even in the most well-meaning representative; this is particularly the case in the lead-up to an election where another term is sought by the incumbent(s), and where other aspirants might be tempted to curry favour among potential voters. It's the right way to conduct this initial phase, but after this, I think it might be best to manage the issue (if/when it becomes necessary) by consensus here with reference to Raul. He is, after all, the most senior and experienced person in this business, and has earned a certain status in the project, I believe. (This is provided he's willing to advise in such a situation.) I want to add that those who are not chosen for the task in this vote should on no account feel that they lack the skills and experience to do it. It's a good field, IMO. Tony (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely, this revisits the argument for sbsolute monarchy versus elected president? What troubles me is that no one has yet provided a good reason why the winning candidates should be chosen as directors in perpepuity. No one has yet even hinted at, let alone proposed, a process to remove the director should they lose interest or move on. The whole notion of a director for life is profoundly unWikipedian and I'm surprised that there is so little clamour against it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidates

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director

A new page

Main page: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director

I was wondering if we should move this to a seperate page, because this could get large and messy fast. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Probably a good idea, but maybe we can let it run here a bit longer to see if any changes in form happen first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Just do it Gary King (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Seconded, please. Save people's watchlists already...AnmaFinotera (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Where does this leave FLR?

Would the director handle the FLR process, or would someone else do it? I've been handling most of the FLRC closures as of late, and I would be willing to continue doing it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Keeping them separate helps avoid COI, and since it has very low volume, probably you could be a delegate of the FL directors there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

If I do decide not to run, then I can do that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Question about the authority of the director

As I haven't had much interaction with Raul or the FAC process (and I would imagine a lot of people at WP:FLC haven't either), could I have a summary of the authority of the director and how the process would work. Like basically, can the director remove a list right away if s/he knows it will fail, can the director promote a list early based on overall consensus that it is quality? How long is the term for being director, 1 year? 2 years? Indefinite based on good behavior? Can the community recall its director if it feels s/he is not doing a good job/there is a better candidate? If we have two directors are they on equal terms, or is one the director and the other the assistant? I would just like to iron the authority of the director out before we nominate one into that position. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 11:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Generally, look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC for an overview, and also consider how WP:FAR runs. The director/delegate determines consensus based on reviewer declarations. In the case of FAC, we almost never remove nominations right away (we must AGF, some articles which start off very badly can come up to speed quickly when they get feedback, and every article deserves a fair shake) unless the nomination comes from someone who has almost never edited the article, the principle editors weren't consulted, or the principle editors agree the article issn't ready (in terms of criteria, isn't comprehensive, etc.). The main differences between the way FAC and FLC currently operate (as far as I can tell) are ... there is no pre-determined length of candidacy at FAC; the director/delegate determines when consensus is reached. That could be three days or (very rarely) two months. And, the director/delegate can account for !vote stacking in cases of canvassing. Also, the director/delegate can determine if a !vote does not reflect the criteria or is an invalid oppose. Raul seems to be comfortable promoting earlier than I do, but since I'm "new on the job", I prefer to let even noms with overwhelming support run for a while; director/delegate discretion. Term and overlapping authority: you're typically choosing people here who simply aren't going to abuse or get in each other's way (see how FAR runs, for example, with two delegates), so those really are concerns that should be accounted for in the !voting here and don't need to be ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Thanks Sandy, I'm glad you realized that question was directed towards you :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 11:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I still think the problem here at FLC is that lists don't get enough votes, period, to determine consensus. Gary King (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Nothing special about that: we have the same problem at FAC, and there are always Supports from reviewers who don't appear to have engaged the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

FAC has more reviewers. After posting a few dozen lists on FLC and a few articles on FAC, that's the feeling I get, anyways. Gary King (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Definitely. I'd prefer more reviewers, to enhance the rigour of the process. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

When you find some extras, pass me a few :-) And then make sure nominators don't dis them and beat them up and never say thank you, so they stop reviewing :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I agree that more reviewers are needed, but how are they to be "recruited"? Sadly, I think this is just wishful thinking :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 12:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Barnstars, rewards and frequent thanks. After that, more barnstars, rewards and frequent thanks. And a post in the Dispatch. And then more barnstars, rewards and frequent thanks. Seriously, reviewing is thankless work: nominators who put up frequent nominations should think about "give some to get some", and go out and encourage reviewers. The ones who actually engage the criteria and don't just throw out a fan Support, that is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

As a frequent nominator at both FAC and FLC, I think I help out by being responsive to reviews. I almost always respond within 12 hours, max. Gary King (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I think the people who are there already will have noticed and appreciated and remembered that, but I'm not sure it initially brings people to the process (how are they supposed to notice). It probably helps bring frequent and perhaps infrequent reviewers back, as they know that their comments will be addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I like to think I'm doing a little good in this world... :) Gary King (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

I'm not convinved by that, Sandy. I would think it only serves to garner supports for the barnstar-giver's next nomination. Saying that though, I've never received one, so I don't know how I'd act if I did! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7) (Note to readers: don't go sending me a bunch, thanks!)

I think everyone likes to be thanked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Is that to my comment about garnering future supports or my request to not send me some? Of course I like to be thanked, too, I just meant that no-one has to feel sorry for me and start sending me some. And because people like to be thanked, some people might feel almost compelled to come back and support a further nomination, especially if they come from a WikiProject and are not frequent participants in the review process. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dweller's idea

<- It would be worth considering if the FLC Directors could encourage participation in 'needy' debates. As they'd be neutral to the success/failure of the nom, I guess they wouldn't fall foul of WP:CANVASS. Not sure if this would work, but worth pondering if/when this gets off the ground. I think all of the FAC/FLC regulars know who we could drop a line to, and we could even establish a volunteer list where people offer their services in this manner. If enough signed up and the Directors were careful to rotate... well, I think there's a germ of a workable idea. (NB I'd sign up as a volunteer if this were implemented. And if FAC copied the idea, I'd sign up for that one too, hint hint Sandy, lol) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC-7)

Good idea. One of my main concerns with the process here has always been from irregular participants from WikiProjects. I think that would have to be taken into consideration to avoid WP:COI issues, which would land us back in the postition we've found ourselves this week. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start on a sign-up page at Wikipedia:Featured List review volunteers. If it's deemed a bad idea, it can be binned. --Dweller (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When I look at the statement on that page, it implies that those people can be contacted if a list I nominated is about to fail because of lack of reviews. Is that the case? Gary King (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so. I'm thinking (and bear with me, this is a work in progress) that volunteers would be happy to be called on for reviews that are either stifled by lack of participation (as you suggest) but also where consensus is difficult to ascertain (say where there's opposes where the grounds for opposition are contested). Sorry to be vague - I think the role of the group will probably develop. --Dweller (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The yellow urgent box should handle unloved nominations. I'm thinking more of cases where there's dispute that needs more opinions. Often the nominator and one reviewer can get locked in disagreement and if nobody else joins, it is a stalemate. Or a list with lots of fan support. Or suspected canvassing. So, I agree with Dweller. Colin°^Talk 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

<-I've started adding some explanatory gloss. Happy for people to help develop this idea, as well as sign up. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the FAC and FAR/C "urgents" templates may be a good way of advertising the process and opportunities it provides for new reviewers. I put these In terms of persuading WPians into the fray, the idea of specialising in one or more criteria/aspects can calm their fears that the job might be beyond their skill-base. FAC, for example, has those who specialise in citations, in prose, in MOS, and in non-free content (sadly lacking at the moment in the last, though). Here, we're helped by the fact that the content of prose is more manageable; FAs are a nightmare of volume in that respect. On the matter of the relationship between the directors, it seems to work very smoothly at both FAC and FAR/C. I suppose there's a bit of communication between them where there's a need to firm up the allocation of nominations. Tony (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin's request

I know this director thing has a lot of support, but I don't think there's yet been a good explanation of how having a director would cure our ills. Perhaps the candidates would like to offer suggestions and say what they think is wrong with the current system that they would change. As many people have said, a lack of quality reviewers is the main problem. Sure, we could eliminate some of the explicit rules about minimum 10 days, 4 support (though I personally think 3 days is too little -- got to allow for enough time for people who don't logon every day to notice and review). I could see a strong argument if the current ad hoc promotion / rejection was being abused or those involved were clearly inadequate for the job. Is that the case? The promoters can only work with what they are given. The Rambling Man say's he'd like to see "a more stringent set of criteria". Well that can be determined without a director and needs community consensus. Propose your changes now.

Would the director be allowed to !vote on an article? Are folk here aware how much the review process at FAC was affected when Sandy could no longer comment so freely? If The Rambling Man, to pick one name, stopped commenting, the amount of text at FLC would half. I see that our current informal director, Scorpion, doesn't comment much any more. Perhaps some of our recent reviewers don't know that it wasn't always this way. When FLC started, there were two or three informal directors who both commented and promoted. It worked. I suppose if they !voted in a way that was against consensus or strongly objected-to by the nominator, then they'd recuse themselves from the process. What rules do we want at FLC wrt the director's participation? Should he give a closing comment?

The current process can be criticised as a system, but once you're a director it gets personal. You take responsibility for that promotion/rejection and patiently suffer any later abuse. Any director needs a thick skin and maturity. Since this appointment is designed to shake things up (rather than slightly improve the current system), it would be very helpful to know (a) the candidate's track record in performing promotions/rejections and/or (b) examples of lists the candidate would have handled differently (allowed more time, or decided differently, etc). Colin°^Talk 21:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I wouldn't see how anyone would have to cease commenting, and if someone is the director, then there really is no need for them to "vote" in the process. If the director promotes the list, than he supported it, and vice-versa. I do agree that we need to define the scope of the directorship. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 22:51, 24 April 2008.

The director should always stay neutral. The director should fail lists that have unresolved comments even if he supports it and vice-versa.--Crzycheetah 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but why would he be in that position? If his opinion is in conflict with consensus, other than rarely, then either he should go because his opinions aren't good, or he should go because his reviewers aren't good and he's wasting his time. In the rare case his !vote would disagree with the consensus, he should ask the other director to process the nomination. The question is whether he should do that for all times he !votes? Colin°^Talk 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like Sandy at FAC, I think it's acceptable for a director to post comments but not to vote either support or oppose. Gary King (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Sandy has successfully walked a tightrope between the appearance of too close an involvement in the reviewing process (conflict of interest) and a completely laissez faire approach. I think her brief comments on some nomination pages concerning (1) due process and (2) citations (in which she has greater expertise than anyone), have achieved this quite well. I think her openness to discourse on the FAC, FA Criteria and personal talk pages has been at some personal cost in time and risk of flack from prickly nominators, but has reinforced the transparency of what is a fairly complex process. Perhaps the lesson for directors here is to:

1. be judicious in commenting, but do so when you feel it's quite necessary;
2. provide feedback/information in response to nominaors' queries, but keep it succinct for the sake of your own sanity and to keep your workload under management; and
3. liaise with the other director where there's a potential conflict of interest or where you feel a second opinion is required.

The directors would certainly not make declarations of Support or Oppose, and I go with Crzy on the neutral bit: the act of archiving or promoting is not a result of personal preference, but a "disinterested" assessment of the reviews in relation to the text of the nominated list. What to do when reviews are thin on the ground (or show no engagement with the material and the criteria—the so-called drive-by declarations—is the greatest challenge. Tony (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Filiocht and ALoan would be turning in their wiki-graves at the suggestion that the featured list process is unable to operate without a "director" being anointed to pass judgement over the efforts of other contributors.

As Colin says above, Wikipedians talk and discuss amongst themselves to resolve problems and reach a consensus. Leadership in the feature list process - to the extent that there is any - has devolved from the mutual respect for the contribution and participation of others. Judging consensus (or its absence) is seldom difficult - and the times when it is difficult to determine are precisely the times when more discussion is required, not the imposition of a judgement by a cabal of one or two individuals. Archiving nominations and tagging talk pages is simply a mechanical process (indeed, so mechanical that a bot can do it).

What are the perceived problems with the process?

• That the FL criteria are unclear? Then suggest improvements. The FLC process has managed to muddle along for several years now, notwithstanding perceived problems with the criteria; in any event, the current FL criteria are based on the a previous version of the FA criteria.
• That there are drive-by nominations? They will clearly fail, unless someone brings them up to scratch.
• That there are pile-on support votes? All it takes to derail a nomination is someone raising some actionable objections.
• That inadequate lists are passing? Name them, and nominate them at FLRC.

There is already a substantial undercurrent of opposition to Raul654's perpetual position as FAC Director, and there is no need to repeat that here. Is Raul654 (or his "delegate") claiming the right to govern all featured content now? -- Testing times (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been no suggestion that Raul or Sandy take over FL. There is a risk in having fixed appointed director(s) that they may take the process down a path that doesn't meet consensus, or that they become a target for complains whose solution they can't be expected to find (such as finding more and better reviewers). If all we achieve in this process is the change from informal to formal directorship, then the process will not be improved. Colin°^Talk 12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what the redlink says above. In particular, no one is "claiming the right to govern all featured content now"—what a ridiculous suggestion. I think Raul probably hasn't been asked yet, and I do hope he agrees. We need someone who's distant and disinterested as a reference point, and he would be ideal. Colin, directors who were not seen to be generally managing the process properly and fairly would not survive. The process clearly does need to be put on a different footing; everyone seems to agree that this is the case. Tony (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who can resist a red-linked conspiracy theory ? Neither Raul nor I are involved with featured lists; the idea that a director is needed here came up at the talk page of FAC when we were discussing once whether a particular page should be at FAC or at FLC, and no consensus emerged. OK, if I erred in suggesting that Raul—as a completely uninvolved party—should close the vote here, someone please put forward the name of another uninvolved beaurocrat who might close the voting. The way the voting is going, it looks like it's not going to be difficult anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As you know, I've taken issue with Raul on a number of occasions publicly. But that doesn't stop my believing that involving him is a good idea, so that we have recourse to someone outside this immediate page if basic issues come up. Probably it would be rare if it happened at all. He's a very reasonable fellow, I believe, and a bureacrat. He is in no mood to be burdened with extra responsibilities on a regular basis, I suspect. Tony (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should to knuckle my forehead and apologise for being a lowly red-link - and no doubt I run the risk of being attacked again as a conspiracy theorist - but will one of the exalted green-links above address the substance of my comment above: What are the perceived problems with the featured list process? What would a "featured list director" do to solve those problems that cannot be done using existing mechanisms? There are plenty of wiki-processes that manage to operate successfully - like the featured list process has for almost 3 years - without a tsar being appointed to keep us serfs in order.

User:SandyGeorgia refers to a conversation at WT:FAC. Is it the one here? The one in which User:SandyGeorgia says: "Last I knew, vote stacking was possible at FLC because there is no director/delegate, and Lists pass automatically with a specified level of Support." and then "because there is no director/delegate at FLC, votestacking leading to varying standards"? Is there any evidence of this actually happening? -- Testing times (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not the conversation I referenced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, SandyGeorgia. Excuse me for saying so, but it does not shed much light on the conversation you were talking about. It would be much easier if you could refer me to it directly, rather than my having to guess again. Pretty please?

I'd also be exceptionally grateful if someone other than Dweller (to whom many thanks) would essay an answer the substantive questions. Perhaps the best place would be here. I would be particularly interested to see the views of the candidate directors. -- Testing times (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't easy. Lots of talk, never resolved:

• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive23#Moving a Featured Article to Featured Lists
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive25#List articles as featured articles versus featured lists
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive26#Is this FL or FA.3F
• Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive26#List articles as FA versus FL again

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia. The first three are helpful background, but, as far as I can see, only the last of mentions the possibility of a director for the featured list process - User:Raul654 asks whether there is a counterpart "who makes executive decisions". Is the whole idea of creating this position simply to give User:Raul654 (and his delegates) someone to speak to and "make executive decisions" together?

As I have said before, WP:FLC - like most wiki processes - has traditionally relied on interested people taking a hand to maintain and run them. Somewhat inevitably, this leads to de facto leadership - a few people do most of the work - but does this necessarily need to me memorialised by putting a grand hat on someone's head and pinning a shiny badge on their chest? It seems pretty silly to me to be granting the grand hats and shiny badges without clarifying (a) what the position is intended to achieve, and (b) how long it lasts.

I find it somewhat disheartening that so few people have participated in this debate, but so many have run to vote over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director. Shrug. As I have said elsewhere, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. -- Testing times (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quote from SandyGeorgia! So the reason vote stacking is happening because there is no director? Funny! There are instances of vote stacking at FAC as well, and there is a director and a deputy at FAC. No one can avoid vote stacking, it's impossible unless you revert those edits/votes. The real question should be does the vote stacking actually work? The answer is no! Not at FAC and not at FLC, even though one process has a director and the other does not. The only reason why there may be instances of FL with low standards being promoted is the lack of reviewers, high quality reviewers. I review lists and I don't consider myself a high quality reviewer, but I know that I do the best I can. I support when I don't see any flaws and if there are a couple of more reviewers with the level of knowledge similar to mine and they support, too, then that list is going to be promoted. No one can do anything about it, unless a reviewer with sharper eyes comes in and points to the flaws I (among others) couldn't see. Don't get me wrong, I hate vote stacking as well, but I am fine with it because it just doesn't work. The only thing vote stacking does is to increase the number of supports, but seriously does it really matter if a list is promoted with 10 supports rather than 4? Not to me! Again, the biggest problem the FLC process has is the lack of high quality reviewers and we're here talking about electing a director, who has no clear duties or responsibilities.--Crzycheetah 00:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder - do you think someone may answer my questions if I repeat them over here? -- Testing times (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

(od)I'm not convinced that appointing a director for life is the panacea for all FLC's ills. Sure, there's merit in having a director for six months, or maybe a year, but then review the situation to see whether it's working. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, pls consider Tony's response above to your concern: While fixed terms would guarantee fresh blood at predictable intervals, they would carry the risk of the pandering, ducking and swaying that electoral politics can foster, even in the most well-meaning representative; this is particularly the case in the lead-up to an election where another term is sought by the incumbent(s), and where other aspirants might be tempted to curry favour among potential voters. If a director does a bad job, the community can always replace them, but if a director has to be re-elected often, you do open the door to electoral politics and pandering. A director needs to be assured they don't have to give in to all the on- and off-Wiki pleas for promotion, or risk being voted out next time by someone who will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I read what Tony wrote with interest and agree with some of what he says. However, these risks are inherent in any electoral system. (One simple fix for all the pandering issues is to make the terms one-off.) The question is whether a fixed-term system, with all its flaws, is better than a job-for-life one. I personally believe it is. For a start, electing a candidate for life shuts the door forever on any better-qualified, better-suited candidates that come along. Then, there's the argument that people inevitably lose interest after qa long period of tenure. The American presidency is elected for two fixed terms. There are sound reasons for that :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it being forever: it's demanding work, and it really dries up the chocolate supply fast.  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that :) I have a similar fulltime job. It's precisely because of the burn-out factor that I think fixed-terms are essential. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the camp where I'd like to see how things play out with a director for a month before making a decision on this. Obviously it'd be better to make this decision before we pick a director, though, but I also wouldn't want to be stuck with a decision that we decide is not the best option. Gary King (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger, you basically made the same argument three times on this page. Please keep it to one thread. Let's make it this one :) I agree with Tony's point that Sandy reiterated. Basically, if people are not happy with someone's work, then they will bring it up on the talk page, where other people would pile on and state whether they want to remove or keep the director. I think it's actually very wiki-like, contrary to what you said above where it wasn't. It allows for ad hoc discussions when they are needed. Less is better so as to not get in the way of someone's job just for the sake of getting in the way and possibly making a WP:POINT. Also, I'm not sure how it works over at WP:FAC; is Raul appointed perpetually, like what we are proposing for the FLC director? Gary King (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul is there for life and there is no process to unseat him. Can you begin to imagine how divisive and unpleasant it would be trying to replace him? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And Gary, Roger really can respond wherever and as often as he wants to, 'ya know?  :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok... Gary King (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• The analogy is more appropriate with judicial officers—judges and magistrates—than with elected political representatives. Aside from the disastrous experience in some US states where judges are indeed subject to direct electoral competition, their technical decision-making above the arena of politics is what keeps them and the process clean. Tony (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. The director shouldn't have to play politics to keep people happy; they should do the work they think is right. Without terms, it would be like becoming an administrator on Wikipedia in that there are no terms for that position, and you are not competing for a spot with other people because there is no set limit to the total number of administrators. Gary King (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that example - minor judges and small town sheriffs - was the one that sprang to my mind too. I doubt though that you are suggesting that after six months or so in office our candidates here will become so susceptible to corruption that we need to elect them for life in order to protect them from themselves :))))

That said, my feeling is that if the role of director is that pivotal to process, the process should be changed. I'm a great believer in transparency. In Milhist, we have a reasonably robust A-class review system, which is simplicity itself. An article needs to garner three supports and no significant opposes in four days for promotion. The review can be closed after four days by any of the (ten) coordinators. It generates no drama whatsoever. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Milhist is a very active project. Possibly more so than FLC. The current system at FLC usually generates no drama either. Inadequate lists aren't getting promoted because the director (official or not) isn't behaving within the rules. They get promoted because not enough good quality reviewers pointed out their inadequacies (i.e., nobody). Some imaginative thinking, like Dweller's list of troubled nominations, should help, but ultimately we just need more good reviewers. For example, if a list looks good and has support but is based on a lot of personal home pages (thus failing WP:V), and nobody has mentioned this, what should our director do? Two negative results:

1. Scorpion's role becomes much more visible. He receives more blame. He gets stressed out and leaves (the role, or WP).
2. The Rambling Man feels he can no longer comment at FLC as he must appear completely neutral. Lists get even less reviews than before, forcing him to promote stuff he'd rather not. He gets stressed out and leaves.

I'm not worried that those two will be bad directors. If they are, I don't get the impression that they'd stubbornly hold onto power in the face of protest. I'd rather we worried less about the term of office and more about what we're expecting these guys to achieve. Colin°^Talk 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a case for a short-comment intervention by one of the directors, if only to marshal the reviewers who are around. Sandy does a bit of that, but tries to minimise it. Tony (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The directors might best have a dual role of being firm about some things and encouraging both reviewers and nominators into a good culture for everyone, and the system. It's challenging, but I think those in the candidature will rise to it. Tony (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know. It's a major problem. If you promote two of your best reviewers you make the problem worse rather than better. Thinking radically, a solution might be to merge FAC and FLC. It would be easier to advertise and recruit for new reviewers as there'd be a broader base of material to work on. It might also solve some of the quality problems. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, with two directors, The Rambling Man's participation won't be lost; Scorpion0422 can close when TRM comments. Roger, In Milhist, we have a reasonably robust A-class review system, which is simplicity itself. An article needs to garner three supports and no significant opposes in four days for promotion. The review can be closed after four days by any of the (ten) coordinators. I can see why it works at MilHist A-class reviews. I can't even touch this without getting into sticky issues: I can't begin to tell you how disastrous this approach would be at FAC (and I've got a spreadsheet full of data that quantifies my concerns. :-) I had to adjust to the delegate role, and the way I've chosen (my choice) to do the job has created some pressure for me, but I believe FAC is working, I think I've now adjusted to a pattern that won't lead to burnout (too fast, anyway, and mostly because some other editors are now doing some of the background work I always did for Raul :-) and I believe FLC will benefit overall from a director (as long as there are two, so neither one is constrained on commenting). If I see an article at FAC that I really can't bear to promote, I'll oppose and pass it to Raul. (Edit conflict: no the merge :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I am just guessing here that you didn't look at the FLC nominations at all. If you actually did, you'd see that The Rambling Man leaves comments on every nomination since he's been here. Basically, what your comment above implies is that Scorpion0422 is going to close all nominations. OR We need to ask our most active reviewer(TRM) to review about 50% of the nominations at most.--Crzycheetah 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an incorrect assumption :-) What I am assuming is that, if TRM thought that the process would be damaged by him not being able to comment as freely on every FLC, he would not have supported (above) the proposal for a director. And the director/delegate isn't muzzled: when a FAC has consensus to promote, but I can easily spot a glaring deficiency that hasn't been raised on the FAC, I point it out (after sufficient discussion, so my comments won't bias the FAC). And ... if TRM is really having to do that much, it's time for others to begin to fill those shoes. That will mean some adjustment (I was very frustrated initially as FAC delegate because no one took over doing the tasks I had been doing, and I felt like I was trying to be Raul and me at the same time: now others have begun to take over, and several of them are doing it far better than I ever did, example, Ealdgyth's work ... sometimes when a strong participant moves into a different role, the process actually can improve). And another point: there would be nothing wrong with Scorpion doing most closings and TRM continuing to comment on most FLCs, just as Marskell does almost all of the closings at FAR, and Joelr31 comes in as needed, or I'm now doing most of the FAC closings, but Raul is there whenever needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Group, not director(s)

For a most of early 2007, I found myself in the position of being (sort of) the de facto FL director, in that I promoting/failing the vast majority of candidates. At the time I expressed concern that this resulted in too much power being concentrated in the hands of one person (i.e. me). It is inevitable that each editor will have slightly different feelings about exactly how the FL criteria should be interpreted, and thus which lists get promoted will (in part) be reflection of their views. This is why I feel that there shoudln't be one director. Secondly, I feel the current rate of nominations is too high for one or two people to comfortably handle.
Therefore, I'd like to propose that we have a system whereby there is group of editors allowed to promote/fail candidates. There should be no restrictions on the size of the group, merely that the community approve any given editor's membership of the group. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom, that's the system we have now. It's too diffuse. Besides, simplifying and tightening up the criteria will make everyone's job easier and, if anything, less prone to the vagaries of subjective judgement (not totally, but less). Tony (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... not really. Currently, anyone can promote an article. I'm suggesting that there is a formal list of editors who have power to promote/fail candidates. I agree that refining the criteria will help, but these matters are always going to have some subjectiveness (is that a word?). Tompw (talk) (review) 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind there being a group of maybe three or four editors. That way, there are more people to answer questions and handle closures (especially since I won't be on much during the summer). However, the downside is that more people means more interpretations of policy, and a list one person thinks should remain open a little longer could be closed immediately by someone else, etc. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope others will let new directors get their feet wet before piling more change on to change; I suspect/predict you're going to find this to be much simpler than any of you imagine. For one thing, the list size will probably decrease as directors are no longer constrained by the ten days. Some lists will be clearly promotable after five or six days, and some lists will be clearly archivable after three or four days. Also, you can delegate some jobs (as I have on archiving premature noms by uninvolved editors). I hope other editors will allow the new directors time to work out how they plan to divvy up the work, but I don't foresee it being an issue. (By the way, can I encourage you all to stop using the word "failing" for archiving nominations? It's very off-putting to nominators.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The ten day rule should stay, IMO. I can see how allowing lists to be quick-failed can help, but quick-promoting lists is just wrong. You have to give some time for the reviewers to do their job. Maybe a reviewer will come along on the 7th day and point to a major error that wasn't noticed before. I see that promoting lists prematurely will eventually increase a number of candidates for WP:FLR.--Crzycheetah 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Quick-fail" (there's that "fail" again) and "quick-promote" are your words, not mine; I know of no such beast. As I said, with a director, there will be cases where they will be able to see consensus to promote or archive sooner. For example, suppose a drive-by nominator puts up a list that gets six opposes the first day and then never returns to the nomination. Why should that be carried for ten days? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing that seems to be a problem, in my opinion, is that the majority of lists come here before peer review, so the ten days is usually required in order to solve all the typos, MOS breaches etc which should have been picked up before submission at FLC. If a list has been properly reviewed before it gets here then I agree with Sandy that there'd be no problem with a quicker pass. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not suggesting "more change", I was suggetsing an alternative to the system that is being proposed. I agree with TRM that these days, nominees are generally "almost, bnut not quite", and just need some polishing. (I don't see nearly as many obvious fails as I used to). Thus, regardless of what happens with a directorate, I would strongly oppose a reduction in the ten days minimum review time. If a list is good enough, another few days don't matter (WP doesn't have any deadlines). Finally, I won't stop using the word "failure". It gets used on all the relevent FL pages (such as WP:FLC and the log), and I don't think its use discourages potential nominators. (I've nominated lists that have failed, it never discouraged me). Tompw (talk) (review) 09:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

←FAC and FAR/C seem to work quite well without strict timings. Are the conditions different here in that respect? Tony (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

'Review now' table on WP:FLC

Just a minor thing that I'd like some thoughts on regarding layout. For the 'review now' box (the one that lists the lists that still need a consensus to be promoted), could we shrink it down so it doesn't use up as much space vertically? Again, this is a very minor issue, but it just doesn't look very aesthetically pleasing. Someone suggested doing it like Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items before but that was quickly shot down; I'm thinking maybe just break it up into two columns, so it would be half the size it is now?

It'd look something like this: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/articles needing reviews. In my opinion, it looks better because it is easier to read. Generally speaking, I don't think centered text with more than a few lines is easy to read. Gary King (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that we usually (or at least shouldn't) have this many lists in the table. It's usually not as bad as it is now. I wouldn't be opposed to any change though, whatever makes it look better. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 06:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's usually at least five there, which already looks bad if they are of different lengths. Gary King (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gary, this is good, but a key sentence there raises issues that I think need to be discussed in relation to whether the quota of declarations (a better word than "votes") is to be retained:

The following lists were nominated more than ten days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or because they have garnered insufficient support votes.

You might consider this, which is a straight borrowing from the FAC instructions:

The following lists were nominated more than ten days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

The directors might be thankful for this change ... Tony (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that no objections have been raised so far, so I might just go ahead and do it. If someone does not like it, feel free to revert it. As a web usability semi-expert, though (I'm a web developer by day, Wikipedian by night), I think that what I have proposed is a good update. Gary King (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reform of FLC criteria and instructions

Dear colleagues

Along with the creation of a directorate, I think we all agree that the governing text needs an overhaul. I suggest that we get this going soon, since it should involve all of the contributors here, not just the directors, and it would be a great advantage for the system to be adjusted as soon as possible after the new system starts, rather than dragging the reform process out.

I suppose debate should occur on the talk page of FL Criteria—do people agree?

May I suggest that a dedicated section be established there for people to suggest:

1. which parts of the FAC instructions might be borrowed/adapted to meet the requirements of the new ternary process involving nominators, reviewers and directors;
2. how we might get Criterion 1 right, building on the discussion above; and
3. which other parts of the criteria might need to be modified, and what might be added or removed from the criteria.

WRT issue 3, I question whether editors should feel obliged to repeat the title at the start of the lead? It seems a very unengaging way to start a featured list. Just today, I saw this (title, then opening of the lead):

• List of National Parks of Canada. This is a list of National Parks of Canada. Canadian National Parks ...

The obvious question is why we need to immediately tell our readers that the title pertains to the text? Tony (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I believe editors want to follow WP:LEAD as our criteria suggests. I found this section that states The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence. If you have problems with it, you should start a discussion at WT:LEAD first.--Crzycheetah 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to do that, but only if I know people here will support me in a bid to have an exception written in for lists. Is there such support? If there are enough indications here, I can link back to this section and present an argument. Of course, in articles, for which the guidelins on leads were written, I guess, it's much more appropriate to make explicit (bolded) reference to the topic at the opening. The problem with list titles/leads is that they start "List of ...", which is just too obvious to repeat. The paragraphed text is also much much shorter than for an article, which means that the repetition looms larger. I suggest we (informally) emphasise the need to get straight into the meat of the matter in lists, to extend and enhance the title; engaging readers from the outset is very important. Tony (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) There is no problem with WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD#Bold title also says "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". I'd argue that "List of National Parks of Canada" is simply a descriptive title and so would be perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD if it did not appear verbatim. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Struway. Then perhaps there's a way of gently mentioning this in the FL criteria; will think it through. Tony (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTM

I see that there is going to be a FLD. As many of you know, I have been running an experimental WP:LOTD and WP:LOTM. For a userspace experiment, I would say it is going fairly well. I do hope someday that WP:FLs appear on the main page and hopefully that my procedure is seriously considered. I also hope that the creation of a director does not impinge upon my experiment. I.E., I hope this Directorate does not try to overshadow my attempt with something that can be described as official solely because the director has blessed it. As most of you know, I pop in on occaission at WP:FLC, but my contributions have been mostly in other areas of the project over the last few months aside from running LOTD/LOTM. Can someone explain what this all means for my experiment in its current form. I probably intend to re-propose it formally in December with one full year of results. How will having an FLD affect that prospect?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I think that comment explains all that is wrong with your "experiment". I also hope that the creation of a director does not impinge upon my experiment. I am sorry if developments here seem to clash with your schedule. Woody (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I, uhm... Not to be rude, Tony, but you'd probably get a lot better reception for your various ideas if you could be a bit less self-focused in your approach. --erachima talk 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have expected my most fierce WP:FL critic/combatant (along with Scorpion) Woody to chime in with the negative. He clearly maintains his position near the top of the list of people who have the least respect for my contributions to the project. My point is that there is just no mention of FL going to the main page, which a FLD would be involved in I presume. Is the purpose to start anointing things as LOTDs or is it to streamline the WP:FLC process? All talk is about streamlining the FLC process. I am just wondering if this is a backdoor attempt to coalesce wiki-authority for a main page drive. Clearly, in the past support for the main page has been so fragmented between the dictatorial WP:TFA process, the first in line WP:POTD process, and my elective process that this proposal could be an attempt to get around the dispersed support. I am just catching up on this issue because I have not been watching proceedings. I just want a quick and dirty on whether this is mostly to streamline the FLC process or for other purposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous comments were a little harsh, I'm sure you meant well by your incury, and I actually think its great that you've started this little experiment and had the determination to keep it going. As far as I can tell, the FL director won't be the judge jury and executioner in all things FL, he/she will just be the one who closes FLCs. Otherwise, for any other FL debates or issues, such as the FLD/FLM, they'd act as just another voice in the community, albeit a voice that everyone knows that they know what they're talking about. Drewcifer (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Did you read everything on this page? I have not seen one mention of LOTD or anything like this. This is to better WP:FLC and streamline that process. Secondly, the director does not have the authority to place anything on the main page, that would be the community's decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to be forthright and say that I can't quite see the quality in many FLs that would be necessary to argue for the sacrificing of more than the occasional FA slot there. Tony (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have never proposed to subsititute FLs for FAs in TFA, but that is not what this debate is about. I will propose a reconsideration in December. Right now, I ma trying to understand the role of the FLD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DISCOG

Just to let everyone know, as part of the ongoing effort to get WP:DISCOG up and running, I've written up my proposal for a discography style guidline, which can be found at MOS:DISCOG. I mention it here since a lot of the FL discogs past and present will potentially be affected by the guideline, since my goal was to make more stringent requirements for FL discogs. Nearly all FL discogs (including the 4 or 5 that I've seen through to FL) aren't 100% compliant with my proposal, to varying degrees of necessary work. I'd like to eventually cleanup all of the current FL discogs, ideally with this or any other WP:DISCOG style guidlines in mind, so any decisions made with my proposal will most likely affect alot of featured lists. So, please take a look and make any comments you might have on the guideline's talk page. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul of FL criteria (and instructions)

Dear colleagues

I've re-started the process here. The input of reviewers and nominators would be valued. Tony (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cascade of "corporate acquisition" lists

No idea why, but there are an awful lot of them. I've looked at two, and found the leads and other aspects to be unsatisfactory. It would be better to nominate them at a more measured pace while making them more useful and informative. Tony (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can slap the bracelets on me. Although, they were submitted three weeks ago and I have done a lot of good since then (in other departments). Plus, I don't see any evidence that says I wouldn't response to any concerns brought up with them. Gary King (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure; I think it's a very interesting and pertinent phenomenon, and we have a chance to angle these lists in a way that adds significant value to the related articles. Keen to see whether one or two can be "lifted" as models. Doesn't need to be a huge lead, but a succinct one packed with engaging information. Those references might be a start. Tony (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that submitting just one would have been a better strategy. You could then have warned reviewers that you had more in the pipeline, indicating you'd like to help establish a model list first. Multiple submissions usually raise concerns about nominator's ability to address issues, but where the submissions are similar, it also causes problems over where reviewers should focus their comments. Colin°^Talk 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, which is why I waited for one of these FLCs to pass first, which I did, then I submitted a few more at a time. Gary King (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence

I'm having a war against these, because it's a great way of turning our readers OFF; the opening sentence is the best chance of engaging readers by extending/enhancing the title. Take this one: "This is a list of people associated with the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada." I've re-arranged it thus as an example.

Does anyone disagree that this practice should be roundly discouraged? It's so easy to fix, and makes the lead dynamic from the start.

BTW, that nomination contains serious problems that deserve more general discussion. Gary, sorry, I just noticed it's yours; I'm not getting at you in particular. Tony (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly do not disagree. Verbatim copying of the title into the lead has always been a little daft and somewhat boring. The only problem avoiding that will lead to is the inevitable edit warring whereby some editors think an article must have a bold introductory sentence (or part of) in the lead. But a small price to pay. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD:

If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface:

A dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics can be shown as a curve, representing the …

This avoids needlessly awkward phrasing, repeated words, and allows for direct links to the general topics ("The electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker are a dynamic loudspeaker driver's chief electrical characteristics").

Its always nice to have policy on your side. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but if everyone knew the policy and complied with it, we wouldn't be in this trouble would we?! But yes, redirect to policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always regarded that particular of policy as ripe for review because it's so little understood. I'm entirely with Tony on this one. It leads to stultifying opening sentences like "The Battle of Foo (1792) was a battle fought at Foo in 1792". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And see Struway's comment above:

There is no problem with WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD#Bold title also says "If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text". I'd argue that "List of National Parks of Canada" is simply a descriptive title and so would be perfectly consistent with WP:LEAD if it did not appear verbatim. cheers, Struway2 (talk)

Another advantage of not duplicating the list title at the start is being able to link the key item to the related article there and then, rather than in a subsequent sentence (typically second occurrence). Tony (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So for the typical "List of XYZ" lists, would we just point to a combination of the above (potentially leading to misunderstanding from those not overly familiar with the MOS) or do we make an addition to the MOS to explicitly describe this scenario? I'm guessing the former... and then reviewers/directors will need to ensure this is enforced correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the twitchy feeling that I'm the local chew toy around these here parts. Gary King (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You and me both since pretty much all episode/chapter lists start with "this is a list of episodes" or "this is a list of chapters" etc. I see nothing wrong with it myself, and rather prefer in character lists to ensure its clear that it is a "list of major characters" and not a list of every pixel to appear 1 second on the screen or in one sentence of a book. *shrug* AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I was jokingly going to suggest a bot to change them all, except that the task is not sufficiently standard for a bot. But it is a relatively quick and easy way of lifting the effect of the openings, and quite fun to dispose of in a single edit. Rambling Man, do we need to change legislation anywhere? I'd have thought Struway's quote was the solution; and if the main nominators can be persuaded not to do it, other nominators will probably follow suit. Tony (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree the current wording, while possibly a little difficult for some, is fine as is and it's just a case of ramming the message home in every review until the trend subsides... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I still got to wait a few more weeks before I can submit any new lists...! FAC certainly works as a second home, though :) Gary King (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Monthly update of style and policy pages: April 2008

It was a complicated month, so I hope I've captured, as simply as possible, the substantive changes. Please notify any issues on the talk page. Tony (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Script...

I just created a script for "resolved comments". Anyways, you can't (sadly ;() import the script because of the apostrophe (') in my username. Its below, and in the toolbar while editing a page, you will see "Resolved Comments". Highlight the resolved comments and click on it. It's pretty self-explanatory from there. The script is available at User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/comments.js, and all you need to do is copy everything and paste it into your monobook.js. Hope this helps. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The current form gives rise to some concerns on my end.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm stupid (or at least, utterly lost in the world of computerese), but when I tried it I couldn't figure out how to make my name appear after 'resolved comments from'. All I get is three tildas. I agree with Sandy's comments at FAC talk about the date/time stamp. That would be useful. Marrio (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's currently set up so you have to type in a username (meaning, the person closing the FAC or FLC can't be sure who added the cap); to me, it's a complete non-starter if it doens't have a sig and timestamp, and I oppose its use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Marrio, Milk changed it so that it enters the user's signature automatically, but it didn't seem to work. I reverted back so you need to enter a username with a 'user' parameter. Gary King (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)