Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 18 Pet

photo src: www.yellowpages.ca

photo src: blog.stetson.edu

Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews

WP:SAL and the WP:MOS

User:Green Cardamom has started a conversation at the MOS where she seeks to clarify the "rules" (I think this is supposed to be guidelines...) on what and what doesn't constitute a standalone list, with the Russian Booker Prize and whether it should be a self-contained article or have a main article and a List of Russian Booker Prize winners spin-off list being the focal point. Please contribute there should you wish to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious Pets Resort Video

Number of items in a list

I was wondering if there was a limit to how many items an article must have before it is said to be a list. For example I came across List of counties in Delaware and recommended that it be nominated at Featured List on the talk page, but it appears from its previous nomination (admittedly a while ago) that having only three items might not be enough for a list (again only two !votes so may not be representative). It was renamed to "Counties in Delaware" and passed GA review under this title. It was then moved back for consistency with other state list. This all happened over five years ago. If three is deemed enough for a list then I will nominate it here, otherwise I might try and get it moved back again. AIRcorn (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this list fit in the main Delaware article, per criteria 3b? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

photo src: www.yellowpages.com

possible FP, but no article

Can anyone suggest a suitable article for this 26 January 2013 Satellite photo of a snow-covered GB, taken by MODIS on NASA's Terra satellite? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=80291&src=nha For all my efforts I can't find anything, but I think it might make a good FP, despite File:Great Britain Snowy.jpg being similar. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

photo src: pattyspreciouspetsor.com

Volunteering

photo src: www.preciousfurspetresort.com

Nominations not closing?

I might be barking up the wrong tree, but it looks like a few recent nominations have been removed from the list, but not closed properly. I keep up to date with the cricket comings and goings using this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts, which lists nine open FLCs. However, reading down through the list on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, I can only see five of those. Looking at the FLCs for the missing lists, a number of them definitely appear in the closure log, as far back as nine days ago, but nomination pages remains open, the talk pages and the articles themselves don't show as having been promoted. I have only noticed this with cricket relation articles, but it is possible / likely to be replicated elsewhere. Harrias ^talk 17:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Update: At my request, Vacation9 is coding VoxelBot to replace GimmeBot at both FAC and FLC. Hopefully, we will have a new bot to help us soon. -- ???²¹ 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

photo src: www.pinterest.com

List of West Virginia Counties Nomination

Hey All- I cant see how I messed up submitting List of counties in West Virginia, BUT I did. Can I get some help???Coal town guy (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+Both FAC and FLC have tightened significantly over the years. Back in the day they promoted to featured status what wouldn't even be B-class articles today. FLC used to be a bit sloppy when it came to MOS issues, but those days are over (though I admit it's been a while since I read the Manual completely). As has been pointed out by far better copy-editors than I am, FLC is still weak on prose quality, but that won't change unless more qualified reviewers show up. Goodraise 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

photo src: www.nashvillepaw.com

List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou

Hello,

could someone close Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou/archive2? It seems that she mistakenly opened a second nomination, because the first nomination is still running. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

photo src: www.nashvillepaw.com

April Fools

Just a heads up to everyone, as this year April 1 (and thus April Fools Day) falls on a Monday, I've created Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured List for editors to select a... proper list for the occasion. Cheers! -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Still rather empty... -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

photo src: canterburytailsresort.com

Manual Closings

Please do not manually close FLCs any more; simply add them to the log as before. VoxelBot is currently on trial. Delistings are not covered by VoxelBot however, due to complications with the code. Vacation9 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Another error

Hello,

could someone delete Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in West Virginia/archive1, move Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in West Virginia/archive2 to the first archive and remove the latter? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

GA vs FL

I know that the question whether an article should be nominated here or at GAN is frequently asked, I would like to here your opinions regarding A Writer's Diary. It is not a diary at all, but contains numerous essays and other articles (including some short fiction). The article can be easily expanded, but not beyond the requirements of a featured article. So I am now struggling where to nominate it. Also it seems that a list primarly consisting of primary sources may have low chances for promotion. Regards.---- Tomcat (7) 13:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Without a look at how it'll be developed I can't offer a comment, but based on the title and our existing GAs I'm thinking this is likely to be a GA candidate whenever it's ready. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For a book, I definitely think that GA is the way to go. Even if the article winds up short, I'm sure GAN will give it a fair opportunity. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

SHould this move had happened?

Should this move had happened since its a featured list? [1] Thank you.174.17.165.198 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Request feedback for how to bring Nissen Award to featured list

Hey, appreciate any thoughts on how to go about bringing Nissen Award to FL. Right now am thinking:

• Longer lead
• Prettier endnote citations (get a gnome to do it for me)
• Some photos, somehow?
• More fields in the table (but what?)
• Writing stubs for the redlinks.

Any thoughts? How to go after it?

TCO (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominating List of 1888-1889 New Zealand Native football team matches

Hey. I want to nominate List of 1888-1889 New Zealand Native football team matches as a FL, but am not sure on the procedure as it has been nominated in the past (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1888-1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive1), but the article name has since changed. There was this--Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 1888-1889 New Zealand Native football team matches/archive1--after the name changed to its current one. I haven't done this in a while; can anyone help? Or do I just follow the normal instructions? Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 11:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix

Hi! I'm wondering if people think that this is a list or not - it passed GA, but failed FAC because people thought it was a list (though this was quite a few years ago). Thanks! --Rschen7754 07:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the article-alert?

For some reason, List of FIFA Club World Cup awards, Records and statistics of the FIFA Club World Cup and List of FIFA Club World Cup awards are listed as FLC's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts, even though they aren't listed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Does anyone know why it's like that? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Flashman Papers

GAN

Reposted from GAN for your collective awareness. The article in question is Characters of God of War. Many people (including myself) feel this is a list, and therefore belongs here, not at GAN. Many others feel it is NOT a list, and does not belong here, but at GAN. Your collective inputs would be appreciated as to whether this article is suitable for FL or not.

There IS a precedent here, with the following articles ALL being classified as lists.

List of Naruto characters List of Uncharted characters List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters

Thanks, Retrolord. ??RetroLord?? 10:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ While we're on this subject, I have a question. Based on previous experience, I am curious as to whether the regulars at FLC consider List of battleships of Spain to be stand-alone-ish enough to come to FLC? I'd rather not waste the time here if it's more appropriate for GAN. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC proposing an adjustment to the governance of featured-article forums

Community input is welcome here. Tony (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Rude comment from The Rambling Man in a FL nomination

I really didn't appreciate this rude comment from User:The Rambling Man. Teasing people for typos is just dumb (let him who is without sin, cast the first stone, and all that), and dismissing what I think is a legitimate concern in a rude way ("We can't wait forever for mythical experts to pop up and say, hmm, I seem to recall an accident") is pretty poor form: I'm no expert on this topic, and I was able to immediately spot an omission from the list when I reviewed it. I've closed quite a few A-class reviews in my role as a coordinator of the military history project and am a frequent FA reviewer, so I'm comfortable with the concept of comments being judged sufficiently addressed by the delegate even when the commentator retains their concern - I have no concerns with my comment being judged as falling into this category. But it's pretty unprofessional for a FL director to be rude to people who have volunteered their time to post a review. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with TRM's main point, and his tone is not as bad as you imply (I wouldn't call that teasing, for one, as he quotes it and lets it drop... TRM is capable of some serious snark [ tame example, more direct ], especially at ITN, and this isn't an example of it). Comment on the article will be done at the nomination page. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco: I may have been on my high horse when I posted the above. But there seems to be no need to be rude (something like "As a director I think that this comment is as addressed as it's possible to be" would have done the trick: the FA delegates have some good lines which they use). Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree, something more... politic, perhaps? ... would be nice. Mind you, when Ian gave such a reply at the second FA nom for Chinese Indonesians the person so addressed took it considerably worse than yourself. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Well now. Firstly I find it rude that I haven't been notified of this little pow-wow. Secondly I find it rude when reviewers make non-actionable opposition to lists which editors have invested dozens of hours in. Thirdly, when quoting people I quote them directly, I don't spell check or grammar correct them. Fourthly, I'm not into political correctness, if you don't like that, that's just unlucky. I'm not here to trot out some boilerplate nonsense to make non-actionable opposers feel great. Fifth, there's no concept of "unprofessional" here, we're not getting paid. Some editors have invested huge amounts of time and effort here, and don't deserve the vague, hand-wavy non-actionable opposition they are served up. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Re: notification - I linked your name so that it would cause the notification thingy to tell you about this conversation, apologies if you don't have that enabled or it somehow didn't work. I'm afraid that I consider conduct here to be pretty poor form for someone whose main responsibility it is to encourage good natured discussions and participation. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think we've noted your feelings by now. My "main responsibility" however isn't as you suggest, it's to assess consensus and to note whether oppose or support votes are valid. The fact that I review every list that goes through FLC is out of respect for the nominators and the process. And I comment as an editor in that respect. Are we done here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

2,500 up!!

Hey FLC community. Just a quick note to let you all know we passed the 2,500 FL mark today! This is testimony to all the hard work put in by nominators and reviewers alike. Maybe one day soon we'll try for two slots per week on the main page, that's another story! Anyway, congratulations all round. Roll on 5,000... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

problem with closing bot?

I just noticed that List of sunken battlecruisers was closed about a week ago, but the bot hasn't updated the article history or anything. Is this a known problem?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FL director

As User:Dabomb87 has been off-wiki since the beginning of the year, I recently contacted him to see if there was any problem with removing him from the position of FL director. He has indicated that this is okay with him. I'd like to personally thank him for all his efforts on-wiki but most especially at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Resignation

Hello all. As a result of a massive impending life change off Wikipedia (and few narky comments from various quarters on Wikipedia), I am resigning my own position as FL director as of now. I've been involved for a few years, had a few laughs and lots of insults, I've worked with some really excellent dedicated folks, and helped with getting our community's best onto the main page, but (as has been noted) I cannot commit to FLC as much as I feel a director should. I'm happy to help out where required (time allowing), and will continue to review lists wherever possible, but because I can no longer guarantee my time, I think it only proper to allow the remaining director and delegates to move on to better and brighter horizons without me. My very best to you all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a pity. You've done a fantastic job, and FLC will miss you. Hope the impending life change is a positive one. all the best, Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Knowing from a while ago off-wiki about this impending life-change (and massive is an understatement, believe you me), I wondered when this day would come - I knew it would have to come, really, but I'm still sad to see it. You have been a pillar of strength for the whole FL process, investing so much of your time and energy into reviewing lists and raising standards, and you have gradually been taking us with you! FLs these days are virtually unrecognisable from the way that they used to be when I started getting involved here, and you must take a lot of the credit for that. Very best wishes, both on- and off-wiki, and I look forward to seeing your name pop up in my watchlist / my email inbox! Bencherlite^Talk 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

TRM you may not be aware of it, but you are the one who inspired me to start writing (featured) lists. Good luck with your future endeavours, and thank you for all your contributions to the project. You will be deeply missed! -- Bill william compton^Talk 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you may be mad at me for reasons I can't comprehend, but those feelings aren't mutual. You will be sorely missed, even when you won't be gone completely. I wish you all the best, and hope that impending change in your life is of a positive nature. Goodraise 13:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll still be around a bit with luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes and thanks for your dedication to FL project. Zia Khan 03:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto to all the above! Your responsible stewardship of the FLC process will be missed! Ruby 2010/2013 01:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all, will still be around, just less often. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Review problems

There is a real need to create permanent reviewers here, since to many articles fails because no one is interested... To stop this from happening, we should create volunteer reviewers or something who are responsible for reviewing articles in the "Older nominations" sections... So far, the major failure with this project, is that people review solely out of interests... Which of course isn't wrong, but there should be some who review older nominations so as to ensure that nominations don't fail because of a lack of interest. Nominations should fail because people oppose its promotion to FL status, not failure by users to review it. --TIAYN (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Telling me FLC is my "precious pet process" is unnecessary, inflammatory and smacks of accusations of ownership. Can you see that? Moreover, I see no evidence to support that, other in your mind perhaps. I'm completely happy to discuss new approaches. As for the one suggestion you've made, yes, the checklist is something I was quite passionate about. However, this may result in many quick-fails. Is that more or less demoralising for our dear nominators than wallowing for three months with no interest? Beyond enhancing my checklist and mandating (?) it in the instructions, what more do you suggest we can do? Looking forward to the remaining 998 suggestions....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that we are not that bad. Take a look at the logs and you'll see. Between 3 to 5 lists get archived every month, against 15 to 20 which get promoted. Usually, most of these lists that don't receive a star are because they are not ready or consensus was not totally achieved. Lack of reviews happens one list a month (or two, in excessive cases) and when it happens, I personally go and encourage the nominator to submit their work again, and explain them why it was not promoted so that they don't feel bad about it. I think that part of what's happening to FLC is because of an overall situation that has been invading Wikipedia since years ago.

For example, in 2008 we had more than 40 lists promoted each month, and now we barely reach 30 on a lucky month. That's because the number of active editors, and specially those who create content, is reduced. Is that an isolated problem of FLC? No. We need more reviewers, yes, but that is also a consequence of the former issue; most assessment processes are lacking participants. Actually, I feel that FLC is still working smoothly. We have our downsides but we manage to get content promoted constantly, and unlike GAN, users don't need to wait two to three months to start a review process that might ultimately fail. -- ???²¹ 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

List of people who don't review as often as they should but who will try to review older nominations if given a (polite) nudge on their talk page

1. Bencherlite^Talk 11:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

New director?

With TRM's unfortunate departure from the position, we are down to myself as the only FL director. I feel strongly that we need at least one other person to help out with the process, preferably two. We can make Hahc a director, but then we'll be short on delegates. He started a page that proposes a new election for FL delegates at User:Hahc21/2013 delegate elections, and I'm curious as to what the community thinks about it. We have had elections in the past when we began running short on active directors/delegates, and think that we are at that point now. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think an election would be okay. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that an election appears appropriate, although the format of the election on the linked page seems odd to me. At the moment, it seems to list three different delegate roles (FLC, FLRC and TFL), though it only discussed electing two FLC delegates and one FLRC delegates. Personally, I think that is more additions than is needed, and more specific. My own suggestion, would be to hold two votes at the same time. Firstly, voting whether to make Hahc21 a director, as if we having an election anyway, it makes sense to vote on that too, and secondly to add two generic delegates, who could help in all aspects of FL. I don't think there is a sufficient quantity of FLRCs to require a separate delegate purely for that, and similarly, with four active directors/delegates, plus NapHit and the work of Neelix TFL should be manageable within that. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest we just axe "delegate" and go for two or three directors. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Elections

Okay, I have set up all the pages. I ommitted using the words "delegate" or "director" and instead just went with elections. We can decide which name the selected users will bear before the elections go live, given that with the timeline I have crafted (above), we still have 16 days of planification before the elections start. However, I still have some doubts:

• I think that appointing two new users is enough, but maybe three would be better. Thoughts?
• The prior delegate election ran for five days and about ~25 users participated. However, the whole election process was held from September 12 until September 20 (8 days). My planification spans the entire month of October, with separate periods for nominations, questions and voting (although the first two overlap). So, are ten days of voting enough to gather a considerable amount of participation?
• I was thinking that we could also cross post at WT:FAC and use this at the top of this page. I may also work on a Signpost announcement. But will we have a watchlist notice and a message at {{cent}}? I want as much visibility and participation as possible :)
• Any comments about the restrictions that both candidates and voters must meet?

Thanks in advance to all. -- ???²¹ 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Very old, unarchived FLCs

At WP:FLCL, there are FLCs up to 17 months old, which nominators seem to have forgotten to embed in the main WP:FLC listing. these should probably be archived, but I am unsure of how to go about in doing that. Adabow (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Steeplechase 2013

-- ???²¹ 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

FLC closures

FLC elections

Everyone is invited to participate. Cheers. -- ???²¹ 00:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize. I will put them back on track this weekend. I just had a very stressful week and decided to give them a pause. I hope they will be back on track on Sunday, October 6. -- ???²¹ 00:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Elections are back on track. I got free time to take all the concerns and solve them. Happy elections! -- ???²¹ 02:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • For everyone's who's interested in being a delegate, please feel free to nominate yourself for the position here. We haven't gotten any takers yet, so if you have an interest in shaping the future of the FL process, or just helping out with the grunt work necessary in the promotion/archival of FLCs, come on down and give us a hand. Besides, we can't have an election without any candidates, now can we? :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Will nom myself, just so that we can't say we held an election and nobody came (and, of course, because I believe in the project). -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks Crisco. Any more hopefuls want to take a shot at running? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I actually was about to personally ask Crisco to run, since I firmly believe he is a very well-prepared and diligent user, who will make a great delegate :] -- ???²¹ 04:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
          • And, like Giants, I encourage everyone who is interested to go and nominate themselves. Cheers. -- ???²¹ 04:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Not that I have any favourites, but I would like to know if any of you, PresN, SchroCat, Status, Vensatry, and Harrias, are willing to put your names up in the election. -- ???²¹ 04:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hahc21, thank you mentioning my name in connection with this, but as I am extremely busy in real-life at the moment, and am likely to be for foreseeable future, I did not feel that I would be able to serve the community in this way at the moment. Maybe in the future. Harrias ^talk 23:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we supposed to vote for just one candidate or can we place our X by more than one? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• The instructions say "voters can vote on their preferred candidates" so I guess you can vote support/oppose on all candidates... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, you can place a vote in as much candidates as you wish. I considered the way you mention, but then it would be a pain to manage later if people don't read these instructions and start voting for everyone anyway. Cheers. -- ???²¹ 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Any plans to broadcast the vote vie talk page templates or a watchlist notice like the initial announcement? --PresN 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed on a possible list

Hi all! I would like to invite editors experienced at the FLC process to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#A list or a regular article? - I recently posted an article at WP:GAN and was notified that it might be a list. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive?

Is there an archive of discussions of Featured List Candidates? I can't find any on the main page. It would be very useful to have a searchable archive in case one wanted to see if a list had been previously nominated and, if it failed, the reasons why. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Promoted List of municipalities in Ontario requires FLC closure on its talk

A bot did this for the recently promoted List of municipalities in Manitoba, yet a bot still has yet to do the same for List of municipalities in Ontario, which was promoted back in early August. Can someone arrange for the proper closure on the article's talk page? Thanks, Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TENNIS discussions

Since you guys are the gurus on creating good lists, would it hurt you to chip in at the discussions at WP:TENNIS.. We are discussing the use of flagicons, the duplication of info etc etc... --TIAYN (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviews

Request for FLC regulars and/or those with active nominations. Please consider reviewing nominations which have not received any attention at all. Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year has been up for almost a month with no reviews, and many of the lists have only received one review despite having been up for a month. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Expansion of TFL on the main page

A new discussion regarding the expansion of TFL on the main page has been started. The views of all interested parties would be appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page on a passed article still not updated

I completely forgot about this article until today, but a bot has yet to update Talk:List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak to reflect that it passed its FLC over two months ago. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I did this one manually. Rejectwater (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot slow?

I was wondering if the bot is slow? Since I have a withdraw a nomination and the bot has not yet closed the nomination. Further explanation would be appreciated! Thanks!  -- SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rejectwater:, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Writing Team was withdraw two weeks ago. The bot has not yet close it. There is huge problem with the bot.  -- SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to go back to old practices and do this manually until I get another bot. -- ???²¹ 04:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Signpost needs some help

Hello everyone. With increasing real life pressures taking their toll on the Signpost's "Featured content" writer, I'm looking for a few people to take up writing it. The bare minimum each week looks like this; the majority of your time would be spent writing the informative blurbs. Having multiple editors (drag a friend with you!) makes the process much shorter, and three or more could allow you to go out and interview some of Wikipedia's hard-working and underappreciated content creators. Would you like to take the plunge? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility

According to WP:ACCESSIBILITY, we're supposed to support screen resolutions down to 1024×768. Lists often contain tables, which are resolution-sensitive. I'm not at 1024×768 but I'm at the functional equivalent because I can't read small text, and I came across a Featured List which was pretty badly formatted and hard to read at that resolution. This is arguably something we can not worry about too much for regular lists, but to be featured a list should look at least reasonably OK at all supported resolutions, I think. Are you guys testing the lists at 1024×768? It'd only take a few seconds. I'd recommend adding a "Passed 1024×768" criteria to the Featured List test, if you don't have it already. Herostratus (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate (and give a strong hug) to Crisco 1492 and Template:SchroCat for their excellent work as delegates. FLC now runs smoothly. I would also say that I apologize foir not being active as a delegate (I have almost abandoned all my duties thanks to RL) but I will be back soon, since things will be more relaxed in RL soon. -- ???²¹ 03:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

FLRC concern

I have a concern about the FLRC process that has to be taken care of. I've looked at the logs (October, November, December) and there are articles that have been voted to be removed. Yet, after they were "closed", they weren't processed. Because of that, the lists that were voted for removal still have the bronze star on it. This is something that really needs to be looked at. GamerPro64 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

FLN

I nominated List of currencies in Europe for FL, and, given that it was my first nom, got lots of comments and a couple of opposes here. However, I (feel that I) fixed all the issues that were given, and invited the participants in the discussion back to have another look. However, the only response that I got was for the remaining oppose to be struck. So now I have no current votes, and was wondering what I should do? Thanks, Matty.007 08:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments problem

I made this comment at 9:12 this morning on the List of light cruisers of Germany FLC. Parsecboy responded 90 mins later. It's now 15:56 my time and neither comment has appeared at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates#List of light cruisers of Germany. Delegates should be wary of closing without checking the nomination page itself, rather than relying on the main FLC page. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I hear you, Schro. At the bare minimum, purge the cache before closing (use ?action=purge at the end of the URL). -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

• I've archived a couple of nominations that were older than 2 months and nowhere near promotion. There are some FLCs that are short one review from possible promotion. Could someone interested please review

• To prevent having to go through this again for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Alberta/archive1, would it be appropriate to advertise that its FLC review requires one more review at WP:CANTALK? Hwy43 (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Note for delegates: bot issues

As the bot is still problematic, and as this has caused some problems with nominators not realising their noms had been failed or promoted, I've started using this comment on closing a nom. It's shamelessly nicked from FAC (who have a template to do the job) and I'll try and work on a good template we can also use. I suggest we use this to close all closures of noms and reviews going forwards (appropriately tweaked for those nms that fail too). Anyone got any thoughts, suggestions or think there may be a problem with this? - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album/archive1 are still open, after months since the last comment. Will the bot archive them, or is there some missing step? Cambalachero (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Surveillance awareness day

Recently, I noticed the existence of Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day, which proposes that Main Page content on February 11 have a global surveillance theme to match that of several other sites. Although that is a Tuesday, and TFL does not run on Tuesdays, they might ask to have a list featured on the 10th. It's worth noting for those of us involved in the FL process, in case anyone has any comments or suggestions related to the proposal. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Time

My FLC, Natalia Kills discography has clear consensus of passing in its nomination page; why hasn't it been approved yet? Thank you in advance. prism ? 23:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Considering Cirt found several issues with images, and the nomination hasn't been open very long, and there have only been two reviews thusfar, I'd say consensus is still out. -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Two different FLCs. I left my comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Natalia Kills/archive1. But I supported at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Natalia Kills discography/archive1. Hope that helps clear things up, -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • And why, dare I ask, are two different FLCs by the same editor open at the same time? -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That part I don't have the answer for ya, I'm afraid. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I didn't know I couldn't have two different FLCs at the same time. Could you please close the one for List of songs recorded by Natalia Kills? Plus, that one doesn't have consensus, I referred to Natalia Kills discography. prism ? 12:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia