Wikipedia talk:Featured lists

Categorisation

[edit]

Moved to User talk:Crisco 1492

[edit]

I propose the following addition to WP:FLCR #5 (open to wordsmithing and linking to improve it):

  • (c) Accessibility. It is accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists should utilize proper formatting so that they can be accurately read by screen readers. Tables should utilize appropriate table tags to allow web browsing tools to properly navigate the data presented in tabular form.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor; it makes explicit what we've been holding "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." to mean for a long time now. --PresN 16:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's essentially been a de facto requirement anyways, better to spell it out in the requirements. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I didn't realize that this wasn't already in the criteria. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the principle, but not this wording. There are other accessibility issues that come to mind (image alt text and color usage come to mind), and while lists and tables are obviously key, we shouldn't imply these are the only items that matter. It would help to link directly to the relevant MOS page, not a subsection (since the entire MOS page is fair game). I suggest: (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly as applicable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RunningTiger123, I am fine with your wording and linking, other than as applicable. I would strike this as it is self-evident that the MOS and the FLCR are applicable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added that since most FLs only have one or the other, not both, but I don't find it particularly necessary, either. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would save us from having to link to PresN's comments everywhere. RunningTiger's wording seems better to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All, I added the criterion. I boldly appended the hidden text that was currently hidden in the criteria regarding alt text to this criterion. Please feel free to wordsmith as needed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'm happy with the wording used. --PresN 16:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing lists

[edit]

I've just tried to do a sort of reconciliation of the featured lists and found nine that were marked as FLs which weren't listed on the project page and had no record on their talk pages of going through the FLC process so I've de-starred them. That leaves the following eight which all appear to be featured lists but are missing from the project page:

Please could someone more qualified add them to the approriate section. JP (Talk) 18:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked these and noted what the deal is inline- most of them are just page moves, but one was a bad link. All now fixed, thank you for finding them! --PresN 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For record-keeping, the lists that got stars taken off are:
They were all erroneous, and largely seem to be people copying a block of bottom-of-the-page templates from a similar list without looking closely at what they were doing. Thank you again, @Jpeeling:! --PresN 19:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking these, List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) and List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE, 1971–2010) are separate lists with both showing as featured but only the former is listed. JP (Talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, messy. Looks like "List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE)" was moved to the "1971-2010" title, and then "List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions" moved to take its place. That means that the star moved to the 1971-2010 list, as List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions was never reviewed (though the list looked very different in 2007!). I'll remove the star and sort it out. --PresN 20:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FLs for television seasons

[edit]

During the FLRC for 30 Rock season 1, the topic of how articles for TV seasons should be listed came up. There are currently 79 FLs for individual TV seasons, including this example. However, these lists tend to be older and newer season articles seem to go through GAN/FAC instead (I currently count nine FAs and ~130 GAs). For the FLRC, I thought the distinction was relevant because the FL works reasonably well in its current form as a list of episodes from that season, but not as well as an article about the season, if that distinction is clear. As far as I know, there is no formal consensus on how season articles should be promoted, so I was wondering if (a) we should make the consensus clear on this topic and (b) we should retroactively apply those standards to current FLs. Currently, I'm just curious about feedback from the FL side; obviously a full discussion would need to include other WikiProjects. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully believe that any season articles should go through the GAN/FAC process rather than that at FLC. Most television series already have a specific page for a list of their episodes (List of 30 Rock episodes in this case) and it seems to me that season articles expand beyond just a list. I've honestly never considered season articles a list because it would be pointless to have two lists covering the same topic. As for those that are already FL's, yes, they should probably be removed, and if they're still of the standard we expect these days they can go to FA instead.
I added a {{please see}} message to the talk pages of MOS:TV and WP:TV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Just to clarify, when you said go to FL, did you mean go to GAN/FAC instead?
I wonder if automatically removing these lists is the correct approach – many of them are still solid, and re-reviewing all of them may be an unnecessary timesink. If I had my way, I'd convert them all to GAs and let them work up to FA or down to delisting from there (FA standards are typically higher than FL so GA seems like a safer option). But I know that has its own issues. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, thanks for asking. Ive correcred it in my message. I would be perfectly fine with your suggestion as well, my main point was that these types of articles should not be classified as lists/go througg the FL process/or be listed as a FL, and was nore that those that are currently listed should be delat with somehow. That said, I'd have no issue with a GA conversion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say skip the side discussions, start one at a central place, then leave notices to both projects. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I left notifications at WT:GA and WT:FA to go with TheDoctorWho's notifications. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I see the argument that something like 30 Rock season 1 is an article which includes a list of episodes, at least some of the TV season FLs definitely are lists rather than articles: see e.g. List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes or One Piece season 5.
If I saw either of those at GAN I would advise the nominator to submit them at FLC instead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue at hand is that some editors think articles like One Piece season 5, despite currently being structured as a list, should be structured as an article with more context (production, reception, etc.). In other words, a season article that looks like a list should be expanded instead of submitted to FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "season" articles should go the GAN/FAC route. If there is an article that is just largely an episode table (like One Piece season 5 Caeciliusinhorto noted above), perhaps that article shouldn't be called a "season" article and that should be reevaluated. As RunningTiger pointed out, the expectations of a season article within the TV project as largely changed, I believe, from some of those initial nominated ones such as 30 Rock, and the expectation is it to have a good amount of prose content amongst the episode table; it shouldn't simply be that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A season article is not a list. It's an article that its scope is the entire production and release (and everything that goes before and after) of a season. It also includes a list of episodes from that season. An article like One Piece season 5 is not a FL, but a C class article at best. Gonnym (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So judging from the replies here, I think the consensus is that TV seasons should be promoted as articles instead of lists. The question then is should the current FLs be demoted? That would almost certainly overwhelm WP:FLRC if it was done all at once. Similarly, nominating all of the current FLs at GAN would overwhelm that board. Maybe we could slowly nominate the season FLs at GAN a handful at a time, and if they don't pass there, a FLRC could be started. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do fear that one issue which may arise from sending these to GAN/FAC may be lack of participation in that process. I don't know how many of the initial FLC nominators for these season articles are still active. While I do feel strongly that they shouldn't be FL's, I don't personally have the time or interest in overseeing GAN/FAC's for all of them. Taking the 30 Rock example for a moment, that nominator hasn't been active in nearly a decade and a half, while the One Piece nominator hasn't been active in 9 years. I assume we would need to find editors who would be willing to take on that process for specific articles? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could take on some of the work; I was thinking about going through the current FLs and seeing which ones would be good GANs, as well as which ones would probably be quick fails and should go to FLRC instead. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick question

[edit]

Are dynamic lists eligible to be a featured list? I'm just asking as I'm currently working on a draft on Tropical cyclones in Russia, which is a dynamic list. Tavantius (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavantius: They are, yes. We have many, such as List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. --PresN 15:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists&oldid=1248714624"