Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria

OVERHAUL OF THE CRITERIA

Along with the process of instituting a directorate, we urgently need to address long-standing issues in the criteria and the instructions. Perhaps participants might wish to suggest below (and discuss, provide feedback, etc):

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.

TONY (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"instituting a directorate"? When was that proposed/decided? Tompw (talk) (review) 12:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, as so often, I think you make a lot of sense. We've had a lot of problems with the criteria recently, which is fine, as they're not set in stone. Perhaps it's worth considering setting up a subpage for doing this, as it'll probably get quite messy? I also strongly recommend that the debate is widely advertised in advance of it opening, so that people don't feel they were late to the party and too late to influence change, or (on the flip side) too late to argue down proposed changes that seem to be agreed already. To this end, I propose:

1. We create Wikipedia:Overhaul of Featured List criteria with some holding copy
2. We protect that page and its talk page with an expiry of a few days to stop people kicking off prematurely
3. We create an advert template with a link to the debate (and, while we're at it, the new list of FLC volunteers) and post it at FAC, FLC, FA criteria, here, VP policy and anywhere else appropriate that I've not thought of

What do people think? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the featured list criteria were based on the featured article criteria in the first place - someone can probably confirm that from the edit history or the talk page archives or something - but changes to WP:WIAFA have not necessarily been copied over here. Some of the criteria here are different, of course, reflecting the differences between a list and a more expansive and cursive article. But I agree, it is probably time for a root-and-branch review of WP:WIAFL. It will help to encourage participation by people who are familiar with how the criteria have been applied and interpreted in practice, of course. -- Testing times (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, Dweller and Testing. But the publicist in me says that the page should be first established and then, immediately, strongly advertised at VP (Policy?) and the talk pages of all featured content pages and their criteria pages. I think it's safe to establish the page without advertising it, with a note at the top that it's under construction. I think the current page should appear in the first section, and should be left untouched as a reference point. In the second section, we could throw open debate by asking people for suggestions as to which parts of the FA criteria might be relevant, and in a third section we could ask for other suggestions for change. Items of discussion could be moved to their own section or subsection further down at appropriate times to keep the discussion in an orderly, structured state (I think no one will object to this).

Having established the page with its basic sections, we could advertise and kick off. TONY (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure all of those steps are necessary, Dweller; editors most involved in these processes usually have the pages watchlisted, and input from editors who don't understand the processes might lead to paralysis by analysis. I would think you could discuss the changes at the talk page where you have the instructions (here), and also announce at FLC and FAC, where editors understand how the criteria are applied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul of Criteria: here's another start

Here's the current wording of the opening:

A featured list ... has the following attributes:

1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
   • (a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list:

   1. brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
   2. is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or
   3. contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles

   • (b) "Comprehensive" means that ...

Taking into account Colin’s misgivings about my “clean-sweep” approach (see his comments here, I’ve come up with another possible solution that is also much simpler.

Some points:

• The timeline-linking issue. I’ve tried not to complicate matters by explicitly referring to timelines (in which it’s hard to link many of the individual items) by including the “and/or non-trivial links in the lead” phrase. If a non-timeline list has fewer linked items than is considered desirable, navigation to related content would still have to be “clarified and facilitated by links ... in the lead”. If this is not tight enough to rule out non-timeline lists that are not sufficiently embedded in WP, please say below. The objective sourcing of items in a timeline is covered by WP's general requirement, and shouldn't need to be stamped out here.
• The notability issue. I think a requirement to fit together to form a notable topic does the trick, doesn’t it, rather than talking in terms of the notability or non-notability of individual items? This would, to some extent, work synergistically with the linking/embedding requirement. I’ve explicitly added a reference to Colin’s issue of manageable size, too.

And further:

• Remove repetitive announcement? I suggest we dispense with the FA criteria structure in which a list of epithets is first announced and ‘’then’’ treated one-by-one in detail, in favour of just launching into each point with its own short subheading.
• Redundancy: additional to normal requirements: Can we remove requirements such as that concerning copyright status and non-free content justification, since all WP’s content is subject to those requirements?

PROPOSAL:

A featured list ... has the following attributes.

1. Well-delineated. It comprises a set of items that:
   • (a) naturally fit together to form a notable topic; and
   • (b) are defined in terms of a manageable size for an encyclopedic article.
2. Well-embedded. Navigation to related content in Wikipedia is clarified and facilitated by links from a significant proportion of items and/or by non-trivial links in the lead.
3. Comprehensive. Where a set is “knowable”, the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists (which may never be complete because of changes in membership or for other reasons), no major component of the set is omitted.

And concerning a point further downs: Any reason the “Factually accurate” point is longer and more complicated than the corresponding one for FACs?

That’s all I’ve looked at. TONY (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like how our criteria are worded now. I really don't see how the change makes anything different except for maybe rewording some items. I think the criteria now should stick, and I also think that if there are any changes to the criteria, that they need to be small. This whole time I have really not seen anything wrong with the criteria, it is more the lack of attention that reviewers give to candidates. I think with a director and the review system we have in place, this will get better and there will be more focus on the small issues. The criteria already state that lists have to follow the MoS, which was one of the main complaints brought forth, so other than encouraging reviewers to focus more on MoS issues, I really don't see a need for a large change like this. But heck, that's just my opinion on the matter.

Personally, I think that the 175 kilobytes of chit-chat (yeah thats how much we've talked on this whole thing) could have been better used to actually review the lists. Let's get this director into "office," tell the reviewers to be more stringent on their reviews, and if the lists don't pass the criteria than don't feature them. Look, all our problems are fixed! But again, that's just my opinion on the matter. For what it is worth, I am kinda done with this convo, I think I'm going to go bring Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame up to WP:FL quality. Good luck with all this guys. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Right, let's count you out of the endeavour to improve the system. Go chit-chat elsewhere. TONY (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will watchlist, but suggest that because so many editors participate at FAC and FLC, trying to maintain similar numbering as in WP:WIAFA will help minimize confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the featured lists I've looked at (mainly regional bird lists) the two main weaknesses seem to be lack of adequate in-line citations and non-MoS formatting. Whilst I don't disagree with the proposed guidance, I'm not sure how it addresses these problems. I've come late to this discussion, so ignore if I've missed something. Also, if featured lists are reviewed it would be courteous to let the relevant project(s) know. One recent delisting attempt was only picked up by the birds project by chance. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

We try to notify relevant Projects at FAR, and the instructions say nominators should do it, but they rarely do, so volunteers have to pick up the slack. Something similar to the WP:FAR instructions might be needed, but if an article isn't watched by anyone on the Project, one wonders how it maintains standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think for criterion 1, a bit of both versions should be combined. Something like "1. It is comprehensive, factually accurate, stable and well-constructed. It comprises a set of items that: (a) that naturally fit together to form a notable topic; (b) are defined in terms of a manageable size for an encyclopedic article." As for #2 in the proposed set, I'm not entirely sure if its needed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add not "Owned" to the criteria list for the purposes of this discussion. How can I add that to the list for discussion purposes? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You just did. How do you plan to demonstrate when an article is "owned"; that is, how do you plan to make that actionable, and how do you distinguish it from stability and POV criteria? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the normal,regular way in which the Ownership policy is enforced will be sufficient. Your recent points at the HRC FAC (prior to restart) shows how stability and POV concerns were distinguished from the ownership concern. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL:

A featured list ... has the following attributes.

1. Well-delineated. It comprises a set of items that:
   • (a) naturally fit together to form a notable topic; and
   • (b) are defined in terms of a manageable size for an encyclopedic article.
2. Well-embedded. Navigation to related content in Wikipedia is clarified and facilitated by links from a significant proportion of items and/or by non-trivial links in the lead.
3. Comprehensive. Where a set is “knowable”, the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists (which may never be complete because of changes in membership or for other reasons), no major component of the set is omitted.
4. Not Owned. The article, throughout its development, demonstrates a receptiveness to infrequent editors and their edits as well as an absence of individual or cliquish article control.

I would oppose the addition of a reference to ownership, as it's too hard to prove and will become unactionable. Editors who argue ownership should instead focus on article content and stability, demonstrating the effect rather than focusing on a difficult to prove alleaged cause. The question is whether alleged ownership has resulted in POV, lack of comprehensiveness, or instability. Already covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actionability is not policy: ownership is policy. An Ownership issue,therefore, trumps an actionability issue. I suppose 1 metaphor might be the process of a criminal prosecution within the confines of a constitution which prescribes certain conditions upon the process. e.g. If the person charged was not properly mirandized or evidence was gathered without a proper search warrant, then the entire case is not able to move to the indictment stage. Similarly, if an article here has been developed in such a way that the Ownership policy has not been adhered to, then it should not make it past the FAC qualification criteria because if that is allowed to happen there would be a fundamental structural problem similar to a compromise of architectural integrity. The policies are the foundation: the so-called "actionable" details are the detailing of the fixtures, cupboards etc.To give the details priority over the foundation puts the whole house/project in jeopardy. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't shown how you would demonstrate ownership, or how that would add anything to the process of evaluating articles not already covered by NPOV, stability, and comprehensiveness. Cause or effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ownership would be demonstrated in exactly the same way it usually would be in a non-FAC article. Maybe you can say how you think it would be demonstrated in an effective way? If you are saying ownership can not be demonstrated, then, I think, you are saying that the policy is moot. I would say that Ownership would be demonstrated if the article's significant contributors, throughout its development, showed an unwelcoming/inhospitable or dismissive receptiveness to infrequent editors and their edits and/or if the article reflected individual or cliquish article control. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ownership is about editors' conduct; if there are such problems, the Dispute Resolution process should be followed. The Featured Content Nomination process is exclusively concerned with content evaluation, and the conduct of editors is not its concern and lies outside its scope (policing its own pages is, of course, another matter). As bureaucratic as this may sound to some, it is actually a very sensible distinction. Content and community matters are separately addressed because they are different in nature, and although they are, naturally, interconnected, their separate handling is both more effective and more efficient. Repeating a known policy in an irrelevant process is counter-productive, in my opinion; if there are problems with editors who disregard policy, and will not accept reason, then there are the channels in place to ensure that the community and its policies will be respected. Use them. Waltham, The Duke of 09:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Duke here. The problems of article ownership are not related to the content of the article. We are trying to evaluate the content of the article and not the actions of the editor who brought it to the standard of Featured content. That is for the myriad of WP:DR processes. Woody (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony seems to be saying (please correct me Tony if I am wrong) here-lower edit that the ownership matter should be addressed during the Nomination process and I would agree with him. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Mr.g, you're still not understanding, and you're still putting words into other people's mouths. It seems that no one else shares your confusion. In the review processes, ownership issues are revealed in content problems: comprehensiveness, stability, neutrality, etc. That's how we evaluate. The behavior that led to the content issues is dealt with elsewhere; if you want to object to the article, you do it based on the content and the criteria, not the editors who got it there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, here are the words from Tony: "Mr Grant: the same way we monitor and improve all WP's content according to policy and style pages. Here, reviewers are quite entitled—indeed should—pick up such issues in a nomination." Ok, the expression "such issues" is in relation to the question of Ownership. I'm simply agreeing with the plain English meaning of that statement; that the Ownership issue should be picked up on within a nomination, whereas the Duke of Waltham and Woody appear to have the opinion it should,instead, be dealt with at DR or as you say, "elsewhere". It's no problem if there is a difference of opinion and I'm eager to reach a consensus on the matter. If Tony did, somehow, not mean that an Ownership issue should be picked up in a nomination with that edit or if he has changed his mind then maybe he could say as much but I really don't think it's reasonable for you to say I put those words in his mouth; if I misrepresented what he said then he should be the one to say so and I'll immediately drop any reference to that. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Criteria missing

Interesting gaffe; why is there no neutral/POV criterion in lists? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at 1(d) titled "Uncontroversial", so if a list is POV, then it's controversial and fails the criteria. If you meant why there was no such criterion in the Tony's proposal, then we'll have to wait for him to answer that.--Crzycheetah 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I had the impression Tony was focusing only on the opening, not everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought Tony said that "the rest is redundant and should be removed"? Maybe I am misinterpreting him.--Crzycheetah 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, can you clarify if you are overhauling/replacing just 1ab or all the criteria? I think both the old and any proposed new criteria have to be judged against some metric, otherwise it is change for change's sake or a change for the worse. Here are some tests. Are the criteria

• a clear set of goals that a potential nominator can aim for and judge when their list is ready
• restrictive enough to be cited as a valid reason to oppose an unworthy list
• permissive enough to prevent worthy lists being rejected
• precise enough that disputes over interpretation are rare
• focused on what makes a featured list, over and above the relevant policy and guidelines.

In order to justify substantial change (rather than just tweaks) I'd like to see some examples of where the current criteria have failed these tests. Can people point to problematic wording or example FLCs where the criteria let us down? I'm not saying this to block change. I believe examples will help this process. And we can use them, plus the existing FLs to judge whether the new criteria are good.

WP has two specific list guidelines, Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), that can be consulted by nominators and cited by reviewers. It may be useful to repeat aspects of those guidelines for emphasis, but only if necessary.

Looking at the current proposal:

• well-delineated This is a rather erudite term saying the scope or entry criterion of list membership is well defined. Those two words are not actually a summary of the following a/b points. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria." If we are to repeat this guidance, I think the current "well-defined entry criteria" was fine.
• naturally fit together to form a notable topic This is similar to 1a3's "naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study". Whether this is a notable topic is possibly an issue for AfD rather than FLC. Remember that 1a3 was phrased to be particularly restrictive as it did not require wikilinks. Are all our featured lists a "natural fit"? Could someone reject out hurricane or "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" lists because they contain fairly arbitrary slices out of the "natural" set (date or alphabetical subsets)? Would you mind?
• are defined in terms of a manageable size for an encyclopedic article This is trying to address the issues on the Arsenal FLRC. Is the size of a list and any trucation of the fullest scope a common issue? Can we find a way of handling this with less words? Or should we just leave this to the subjective judgement of what is "useful", which is a criterion that has been dropped from the proposal. The wording "defined in terms of a manageable size" isn't great English IMO. Sorry, Tony.
• Well embedded This isn't a characteristic I've seen promoted before. I'm not sure it is an improvement on "useful". What do others think?
• Navigation to related content in Wikipedia is clarified and facilitated by links from a significant proportion of items For goodness sake, Tony, have you been copyediting business documents recently? "facilitated"! Noting your previous point about "bringing", can we just tweak the existing criterion to become "links together a group of existing articles"? Although a minority of redlinks is often allowed, the existing phrasing allows reviewers to judge when that falls below "useful". By making it explicit, "significant proportion", there is a danger that a short list, which has no reason to contain any red links, could demand promotion. Think of a discography--I can't think of a good reason why all the links shouldn't be blue.
• and/or by non-trivial links in the lead. This "cop out" is intended to replace the existing 1a2/1a3 exclusions for lists that lack wikilinks per list-entry. I'm afraid it is too generous. I'm not quite sure what a "non-trivial link" is. The lead should obey standard WP guidelines for prose wrt wikilinks. I don't see how links in the lead have any bearing on whether there need to be links in the list body. Perhaps we need to review just what sort of lists we want to allow that don't fit 1a1? I see timelines and bibliographies fitting that exemption. Any others? Can we categorise such lists without being explicit as we do with 1a2?
• Comprehensive. Where a set is “knowable”, the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists (which may never be complete because of changes in membership or for other reasons), no major component of the set is omitted. I don't see this as an improvement on 1b. The new requirement of "knowable" be problematic. I fear some lists are technically "knowable" but practically impossible to complete (obeying WP:V), nor would such a complete list be "useful".
• Tony asks why "Factually accurate" deviates from FAC. I guess it once matched but FAC split it into 1(c) and 2(c). Most of the other FL criteria could be brought into line with FAC (they are, every now and again), though the purpose of a list's lead is different to an article's lead.

I'd like to maintain the concept of "useful" as a goal/requirement. I believe the current 1a1 rule (with a change from "brings" to "links") is good for >90% of lists at FLC. I'm open to suggestions on revising the other two sub-clauses. Are there other examples than timelines and bibliographies that need exemption from 1a1?

You can tell I'm taking a fairly conservative approach to change. I don't want to discourage Tony or anyone else (future Directors speak your mind) from suggesting change. For example, are there new restrictions you want, where a bad list has slipped through. Are there some restrictions you want removed? I've personally used the "our very best work" phrase to abstain from supporting a list that doesn't shine, despite fitting the objective criteria. Do people think we need to be more explicit about minimum length or importance? Colin°^Talk 21:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposal (1)

This one is complete; the one above was only a start. TONY (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, a featured list has the following attributes.

1. Notable. It comprises a set of items that come together to form a notable topic.
2. Appropriately linked. It is linked to related articles on Wikipedia.
3. Comprehensive. Where the membership of a set is known and stable, the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists, no major component of the set is omitted.
4. Well-structured. It has a concise lead section that summarizes the scope and entry criteria of the list, and prepares the reader for the greater level of detail in the subsequent sections. Where appropriate, the list has a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help). The list is easy to navigate and is annotated with information as appropriate.
5. Factually accurate. Claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
6. Neutral. It presents views fairly and without bias.
7. Stable. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured list process.
8. Manual of Style. It complies with the standards set out in the Manual of Style.
9. Images. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt".

• Comment Tony, could you please clarify what the point of #2 is? I'm not sure if it is entirely necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Later comment: Scorpion and others, can you suggest how the current #2 might be slightly expanded to qualify the linking of FLs? (That is, for the purpose of ...?) TONY (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict: Scorpion, I wonder whether my recent change to it and explanation below are sufficient.]

My responses to comments in the previous section:

• Colin, you said "Can people point to problematic wording or example FLCs where the criteria let us down?" I've done that at FLC talk. In the voting for "Should we have a director" there are calls for the criteria to be dealt with at the same time; on the talk page I see confusion and doubt over the opening criterion, confusion about the term "usefulness". I also take a conservative approach to changing things that do not need changing. Perhaps the proof of the pudding is that criteria are rarely cited by reviewers. They need to be, to make the system more focused and objective; the current structure is almost impossible to grasp and remember, and is daunting for outsiders to approach. Why have I had to ask so many questions about what the opening points mean? I've changed "Well-delineated" to "Well-defined" after your point.
• Colin's point: "Are all our featured lists a "natural fit"? Could someone reject out hurricane or "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people" lists because they contain fairly arbitrary slices out of the "natural" set (date or alphabetical subsets)? Would you mind?" Probably not; why is alphabetical or chronological order the essence of what is "natural"? I think this is a red-herring: can you provide an example that would be a problem in this respect?
• Colin's point about "are defined in terms of a manageable size for an encyclopedic article". Well, it was your point, which is why I included it. Same with "Well-embedded"—the term is mine, but the concept was yours. Both seem worth including. "Useful" could mean anything; better to explain what is meant by that general word.
• I see nothing wrong with "facilitated". Your suggestion "Links to a group of existing articles"—surely they need to be "related articles". What are "non-existing articles"? I've changed the point—is it OK now?
• Sandy: (1) the FA criteria numbering is already departs from the FL criteria numbering in several respects, and there's little point in banging a square peg into a round hole. (2) The structure of the FA criteria is, IMO, unnecessarily complex and repetitive (especially the list of what we're about to get, then we get them, with "x means that" again and again"; there's no need to duplicate that here. Simplicity and brevity are more likely to attract reviewers to FLC and to make the task of both preparing nominations and reviewing them simpler. The directors will also be aided by simplicity and brevity. (3) I've added a NPOV point; yes, that was a hole.
• I see a proposal at talk (including Colin's agreement) that some of the information in the criteria is redundant because it's required of all WP content. For that reason, I've removed some of the wording about non-free content and copyright. The criteria are too long and complex, IMO. This shouldn't be a checklist, but a set of additional requirements for featured lists, as is announced in the lead paragraph to the criteria. More could be removed, but I dare not go that far without further suggestions here.
• On that note, Scorpion, concerning your feeling that the list of epithets at the top be retained and repeated on a lower level of the hierarchy below: do you not think it's simpler to say them once, as in this proposal?
• The ownership policy covers all WP's content and is not required here. TONY (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've relocated Mr Grant's green box into a dedicated page here, plus his posting here concerning "ownership"; I've done this because I believe that this is the wrong place for that debate. TONY (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I prefer the revised set of criteria for FLs above. 1) The criteria are written in list form, instead of a block of prose, which I think is clearer. 2) There is a systematic identification of what are the desired characteristics of FLs, which is very helpful, and the number of criteria listed is greater than before, implying more completeness. Overall it does a better job of explaining what is a FL than did earlier versions. - Neparis (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• One issue with the set of criteria for FLs is that it seems to ignore the idea of the humble, alphabetically sorted list. I am thinking of simple, alphabetical lists, including but not limited to alphabetical indexes, of the form List of topics in X (alphabetical), where X is a particular field or even the whole encyclopedia (in which case the list is an index to the encyclopedia).

Such lists, which may be nothing more than "flat" lists in alphabetic order, i.e. sorted but otherwise unstructured lists, are useful in both navigational and non-navigational ways. They enable the reader to browse alphabetically adjacent or nearby topics. They enable at-a-glance checking of the completeness of coverage in X.

I think it would be useful that the FL criteria address the possibility of alphabetic lists. The present criteria, particularly "1. Notable. It comprises a set of items that come together to form a notable topic" and "4. Well-structured" could be seen as a deterrent. - Neparis (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Neparis. I'm new to FLs, and I'm already noticing lists in alpha order that I'd rather have in chronological order. But isn't it a case-by-case matter, editors choosing the angle (structural form) that is best for the list as they judge it? I think it's covered by #4 (easy to navigate), and should not be specified precisely. TONY (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, regarding the second line in your green box: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles..", how will that be ensured in relation to those requirements which, as SandyGeorgia pointed out in relation to 1 policy[1], might have contraventions which are not demonstratable in an actionable way when they hit FAC ? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Grant: the same way we monitor and improve all WP's content according to policy and style pages. Here, reviewers are quite entitled—indeed should—pick up such issues in a nomination. TONY (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm baffled because what you are saying is in direct conflict with this and this. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the need for 2, and in 8, we specifically eliminated mention of WikiProjects in WIAFA because any Project guidelines that enjoy broad consensus are already part of MOS. Is there no prose standard ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns (just concerns, not obstacles):

• Point 2 is possibly too watered down to be a useful defence against a list with either the majority red-links or (worse) a majority no-links per entry (without a good excuse). One interpretation is merely "Articles on WP have internal links" -- which I think is why Sandy doesn't see the need for it. Rather than offer guidance as to community consensus through the criteria, we've left the "appropriateness" of the linking to reviewer and nominator judgement. Perhaps people want the rules to be less rigid and more flexible. I'd like the potential directors to comment on this.
• "Notable" is a novel requirement for FLs and is rule #1. Are we saying the most important thing about an FL is its own notability? How does one establish the notability of lists of locks on canals? Should List of former county courts in Wales be rejected on this point?

I haven't seen many suggestions of new criteria. At the director nominations, people talked of tightening the requirements and ensuring our FL selection was improved. I'd like to step back for a while and let others contribute, because we need more voices here. Colin°^Talk 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that I see what 2 is about, yes, it should be refined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, by stripping away what was unclear, the new 1 and 2 are now redundant, it seems. Perhaps I could never understand in the first place the old Cr. 1, which suggests that there were serious problems. Here's a lateral idea, then: get rid of both 1 and 2 (new). What would that let through that is undesirable, given that all WP topics must satisfy notability criteria. What FL nomination is likely to come through with insufficient links? (Overlinking, however, is a problem.) TONY (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question This question has come up Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Charlotte Bobcats draft history and, previously, here. In short: How long should a FL be? As you can see from the discussion, the consensus is that the criteria doesn't cover it, which means that the discussion degenerates into a "support by silence/oppose by silence" debate. I think the question really should be addressed, in some way or another, in the new FL criteria. Noble Story (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Length has come up at FAC talk a number of times. It's not an easy question, and impossible to legislate on. We must, IMO, rely on the "comprehensive" criterion. TONY (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But the point is that the "comprehensive" criterion doesn't cover it. Well, actually it does, in saying "'Comprehensive' means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set". However, that would seem to say that anything with more than two items is a list. Is that really true? Noble Story (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Colin asked me to post his response from my talk to here:

There are aspects of the criteria (notable, factually accurate, neutral, MOS) that are fully covered by policy and guidelines. At FL, those aspects should be scrutinised and should naturally rise above the low standard elsewhere. Other aspects of a high quality list are not covered by existing policy and guidelines: comprehensive, well structured, stable, appropriate images. It is useful to mention them as prompts for reviewers to consider, and to establish some consensus as to the level required. To those, I'd argue that blue-linked list entries is another requirement that raises an FL above any old compliant list. Ignoring the oddball timelines and bibliographies, nearly all "useful" featured lists on WP have a blue link per list entry (or close). Too many redlinks (or not enough links at all) is still a relatively common complained at FL. List of ammonites is an extreme example. Underlinking doesn't help Wikipedia and too many redlinks makes the article look unfinished. I think FLs (and FAs) should look finished. Another list-specific failing we sometimes see is where a list (usually in table format) is annotated with information for only some of the entries. Without good reason, such tables also look unfinished and could be improved with effort (though sometimes the sources just don't permit). You say "Overlinking" is a problem. I can see that with the prose bits, but is this common for the tables?

So we need to draw some kind of boundary around what is uniquely required in FLCs and what is required of all WP's content (as implied in the existing and proposed lead sentences. I'm inclined not to make it a checklist of things that all content should have. Our nominators and reviewers should be checking that anyway, shouldn't they? I'm a minimalist: keep the criteria as short and simple as possible, and we'll attract the most participants and streamline discourse on the nomination pages.

If we do include checklist issues (notability? linking?), I think they should be expressed in a way that relates specifically to lists.

We really do need more people to comment, including, of course, the new directors (as Colin said on my talk page). I suggest that we try to nut out these issues in the next week or two. TONY (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why nobody's too interested in commenting because this topic and process, as it currently stands, amounts to an introverted type of dogmatic navel gazing. I'd certainly like to see the discussion expand with a much broader and less controlled brainstorming methodology of related idea generation. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Two more observations to ponder:

• It relatively common for nominators (and reviewers) to ignore the lead sentence in the criteria, and think only the numbered ones count.
• A difficulty with opposing a list because it has fundamental problems (for example, too short, or just not enough reliable sources) is the old "inactionable" complaint. How many here believe that any list (or article) that can survive AfD could achieve featured status?

Colin°^Talk 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "inactionable" complaint is patently Kafkaesque and the fact it is taken seriously here is both humorous and disturbing. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Colin's question, I, for one, do believe that any article, no matter how fundamentally questionable, which can survive AfD could achieve featured status if managed by a well-liked significant contributor and with sufficient attention given to dealing with all the little "actionable" details. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposal (2)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and formatting. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, that it present views fairly and without bias, be appropriately linked, and form a notable topic—a featured list has the following attributes.

1. Comprehensive. Where the membership of a set is known and stable, the list includes every member; in the case of dynamic lists, no major component of the set is omitted.
2. Well-structured. It has a concise lead section that summarizes the scope and entry criteria of the list, and prepares the reader for the greater level of detail in the subsequent sections. Where appropriate, the list has a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help). The list is easy to navigate and is annotated with information as appropriate.
3. Factually accurate. Claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations. See citing sources for information on when and how extensively references are provided and for suggestions on formatting references; for lists with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
4. Manual of Style. It complies with the Manual of Style.
5. Stable. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for edits made in response to the featured list process.
6. Images. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt".

• Slap me down, but I've had another go at the proposed new criteria. This time, I've put all of the universal requirements for WP's content—the "checklist" that someone mentioned—in the lead, except for the item that would be too long and cumbersome: "factually accurate". Thus, the numbered criteria are, with this exception, the unique requirements of FLs. All lists must comply with the universal requirements. I've retained the "Manual of Style" point since, like articles, it's the featured class that absolutely must follow MoS. Colin, I do believe that once the criteria are more user-friendly, people will take notice of the lead. I've been doing so, because that's where the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing lies.

Thus, I've stripped back the numbered criteria to a short, simple list. TONY (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better to me. I'll support it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposal (3)

OK. Enough criticism from me. I've had a go. I too have separated the universal requirements from what separates our "best work". Although my version mentions and links to more policy and guidelines pages, I've tried to strip away anything that is already covered elsewhere, or is uncontroversially a good thing that doesn't need explicit handling. I've completely done away with the bold summary-word for each point. It needs a little polishing, but what do you think of this approach? Colin°^Talk 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All stand-alone lists are expected to

1.	Comply with our content policies. The list should be correctly named, take a neutral point of view, contain no original research, be verifiable through appropriate citations of reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), and be suitable for Wikipedia.
2.	Take heed of our guidelines, in particular the Manual of Style and its subpages.

Over and above this, a featured list should exemplify our very best work and

3.	Feature professional standards of writing, with an engaging lead section, which introduces the subject, defines the scope and establishes the membership criteria.
4.	Comprehensively cover the defined scope: providing a complete set if practical; all major components otherwise.
5.	Appear finished (for example, having a minority of red links or empty table cells).
6.	Provide more information than a bare list through appropriate annotations and body text.
7.	Be visually appealing, making suitable use of use of text layout, formatting, tables, colour and images (with succinct captions or "alt" text).
8.	Be easy to navigate, having (where helpful) a table of contents, section headings and table sort facilities.
9.	Be stable (ignoring vandalism reverts and improvements towards featured status). Lists that cover a highly dynamic subject or are controversial (provoking edit wars) are unsuitable.

I like this one also. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I could live with both, but Tony's is clearer and more readable. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I very much like most of the changes you've made; I'd like to pose the following issues.

• Bolded subheadings: I thought they made it easier to digest.
• Lead: We cannot legislate here for non-featured lists, and "All stand-alone lists are expected to" might give that impression. I think it would be better to retain the current (and previously proposed) mention of this in passing "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content ...", changed to "all of Wikipedia's lists" if that's better.
• Cr 1—excellent, but I think better in the lead.
• Cr 2—"Taking heed" of the style guides, including MoS, is quite a come-down from the current insistence on following them. FACs must comply, FLCs must, and I see no reason to weaken this requirement. Non-featured lists and articles are, unfortunately, under less pressure to comply, a situation we have no control over.
• Cr 3—excellent.
• Cr 4—conceptually much better, but needs a punctuation tweak: "Cover the defined scope, providing a complete set if practical, and otherwise all major components. Could 6 be tacked onto the end of this?
• Cr 5—only "a minority" of links red and table cells empty? That's less than 50%. Perhaps something stronger, such as "Have a finished appearance, including a minimal number of red links and empty table cells."? And could this be tacked onto the end of 7, since both concern comprehensivity?

Cr 8—much better.

• Cr 9—"improvements towards featured status"—I'd like not to encourage the idea that nominations might already be at featured status; the old "except for vandalism reverts and edits made in response to the featured list process" might be better. TONY (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We can bold phrases if you like. I found the single or compound bold words to be insufficient to express the concept and not all were "attributes". The MoS example was particularly awkward.

I didn't think points 1 and 2 were "legislating" above what is "expected" on WP. However, I see you want to strengthen the compliance with MoS, which is above what WP demands. How about we merge 1 and 2:

1.Comply with our content policies and take heed of our guidelines. The list should be correctly named, take a neutral point of view, contain no original research, be verifiable through appropriate citations of reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), and be suitable for Wikipedia.

then move MoS compliance to the second section:

2. Feature professional standards of writing, compliant with the Manual of Style and its subpages. The list should begin with engaging lead section, which introduces the subject, defines the scope and establishes the membership criteria.

The reason I wanted Policy and Guideline compliance to be point #1 was because #1 is a special number and it makes citing this criterion easy. This is the fundamental criterion and any oppose based on that should be taken very seriously.

The "Appear finished" examples aren't phrased well. By empty table cells, I'm thinking about a table-list with only patchy annotations. However, it may well be legitimate for a table to have columns that are mostly empty if any entry there is exceptional. So maybe we need a better description of "patchy annotations or detail".

The original "comprehensive" criterion was concerned only with set-membership, which I've maintained. One could extend "comprehensive" to cover red links and missing annotations (5) as well as the need for extra detail (6). So 4/5/6 could be merged. Is there any aspect of "appears finished" that isn't satisfied by being "comprehensive"? It might be worth waiting for comments on 5 and 6 before merging them into 4. Both ideas have been suggested in the past, but are new to the criteria. It might make it easier to debate them if left separate for now. Keeping the points separate was something I was trying to achieve.

Other than that, I agree with your suggested tweaks and, of course, I expect you to do a better job than me on the punctuation! Colin°^Talk 11:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I admire its aim (I shudder to think about the Arsenal list recall shouting match) I think that criterion 4 needs consideration. Who decides what is "practical"? Do we try to pin this down, or deliberately leave it vague? Is it something that the new Directors will or even should rule on? Lots of qs from me and not many as for now, on this issue! --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr. 5 is too weak. I actually disagree about the redlinks in particular, but it seems I'm in a minority. Talking about minorities, I think we should be more tolerant of problems the longer the list is. I.e. 3 lacunae in a massive list will look far better than in a very short one. So how about "Proportionately comprise very few, if any, lacunae, such as redlinks, missing data or empty cells in tables." --Dweller (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify: is your opinion that we should be more or less restrictive in disapproving of redlinks? I think that "proportionally" (relative term) conflicts with "very few" (absolute term). Tony suggested "a minimal number of"? If we agree the number should be relatively small then that is as precise as we can probably get. We'll leave the absolute threshold to be on a case-by-case basis. For example, whether a given short list has any excuse for having redlinks. BTW: lacunae is a new word for me, so my guess is that it will be for lots of readers. I'm still not totally comfortable with the "empty cells" phrasing (I know I brought it up). Perhaps "missing data" covers that since a cell may be empty without missing data, which is fine.

At the moment, my feeling is to leave the judging of "practical" to be on a case by case basis to be determined by consensus. Though this is one of the things that Wikiprojects could establish a useful consensus for a particular domain (such as football team member lists).

On the issue of "ownership" (see below), I don't believe this should form any part of the FL criteria. Editor behaviour has no bearing. We are here to discuss the merits of the article. Colin°^Talk 12:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I agree about ownership. On your merged 1 and 2, I really have to say that universal requirements shouldn't be in the numbered criteria, but in the lead. I have a few problems in explicitly mentioning/linking two sites:

• content policies lists lots of policies that are irrelevant to our task here, such as behavioural policies and—ensconced at the top—"Ignore all rules". I think this is not helpful. Are there any further specific policies that need to be singled out explicitly? That would be preferable, I think. Here, I think generality at the top of FAC is simpler and better, although I could cope with the special mention of policies that have been a particular issue in FLCs.
• Guidelines—same deal—I see that weird "All the web" thing, run by a small band of people who want to link just about every word. Please, let's not give it oxygen; I can see a nominator using that to rebuff reviewers to object to linking common years and dictionary words.
• "Take heed of" really means nothing, does it, in this context: "complies" or "doesn't compy" is all that we can go by. TONY (talk)

I agree re ownership. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really like someone, anyone, to explain how any project, with even just a basic level of integrity, can profess an OwnershipPolicy while excluding consideration of contraventions of that policy when evaluating the project's "best work". Wouldn't that qualify as Doublethink? Absolutely! Doublethink is certainly all the rage in 2008 in most venues, so it would not be unusual to see it prosper here; but at least we should be clear thinking enough to recognize it, and honest enough to admit it, when it's being brought into, and accepted by, the project and its contributors. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Let's start here: What do you mean when you say above: "I agree re ownership."? I assume you are agreeing with Colin that "I don't believe this should form any part of the FL criteria."Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I don't feel we need to list every policy. WP:OWN applies across the whole of Wikipedia. The criteria should be stressing the policies that have particular relevance to the assessment of Featured List candidates. This one doesn't. I'm also unconvinced about mentioning BLP, but that at least refers to content of the article, rather than behaviour of editors. Anyway, I'm afraid my weekend starts here. Back Monday. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To understand my comment, one needs only to read our OwnershipPolicy and also the Doublethink article and put into the mix the view that "I don't believe this (Ownership) should form any part of the FL criteria." My meaning is: That view can only co-exist with our Ownership policy within the realm of Doublethink. Even worse, there is also the expressed view that Ownership concerns should be specifically excluded from consideration when evaluating FACs.Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No doublethink required. We are limiting judgement to the article, not the behaviour of any editors involved in its creation. Once we start analysing editor behaviour, there is no end to the problems. Should ownership issues spill over into edit warring or article protection, then the article will fail the stability criterion. A shouting match on the article talk page, which doesn't affect the article page, is not our concern. Bad behaviour on the part of editors results in sanctions against the editor, not the articles they have worked on. I get the impression this isn't a hypothetical issue for you? Colin°^Talk 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the conflation of Policy contravention with editor behavior. It is possible to have a contravention of Policy while the Editor was behaving in a completely "good faith" way. If you disagree with my opinion, that's just fine, but I fail to see why any of the policies need be ignored when evaluating FACs nor do I see why there should be thousands of FAs. To be brutally honest, I think it would be just plain lazy of us to approve FL criteria which narrowly focuses on the final content while ignoring the adherance to Wikipedia policies in the article's construction. I absolutely maintain that it is possible and necessary to evaluate the article in a holistic way as opposed to simply dropping by to view the final product. After all, it's the methodology of Wikipedia's process which as much as, if not more than, its products, gives it its integrity and appeal. Yes, it would be more time consuming and difficult and there would surely be far fewer FAs, but the few that do reach that status would then truly be able to be seen as this community's "best work". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I mean by confusing - I don't know where to respond on redlinks, so I'll put it here, several lines below the relevant bit of conversation. I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to insist on no/few redlinks. If I create a comprehensive list of every single Norwich City player who ever played because I don't want to depend on the >100 games issue, I'll have a list of hundreds, possibly thousands of names (the club was founded >100 years ago and has played c.50 games most years since then, with 11-14 players taking the pitch each time). My otherwise FL quality article will be stuffed with redlinks, because there are very few active editors with an interest in NCFC. So, what will I do? I'll go on a stub-creating spurt that'll take me ages and add little of value to the project. Or, and this is the worst outfall from this, I won't bother creating the FLC because the concept of having to do that fills me with dread. The fact that many constituents do not yet have articles does not reduce the quality or the utility of the FL I'm actually trying to write. If the crappy stub articles are (rightly) outside the purview of the FLC then what difference if they're brilliant/stubby/rubbish or... not yet in existence. If the list pulls together information that belongs together and is inherently notable, I have no problem with even large chunks of the material being missing as articles, so long as they are in the list (which, after all, is what FLC is supposed to be judging). --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I'm intrigued to know why you wouldn't take a third course of action: not link them at all. Having red links spattered all over the place (I've just reviewed one) looks awful, especially to visitors who don't even know what they are. TONY (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the thing about Wikipedia is that it grows and develops. If included as redlinks, they'll hopefully all turn blue eventually. If unlinked, unless someone has a clever bot I don't know about, the Featured List will not link to newly created articles that are within its scope. There's nothing inherently aesthetically unattractive about redlinks vs blue. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lacunae: no problem not using that word. Think there needs to be some sort of proportionality. I suppose that could be something interpreted by the Directors if not spelled out in the words, but I do think "very few" or similar is asking for trouble when someone makes a 300K list with say 3 omissions. --Dweller (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

7: Images needs a reminder about licensing. Can't be said too often. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from, and I'm as much a copyright zealot as anyone, but it's the case for all content. I do think it can be said too often in a text that is best when shortest and simplest: that is an overriding principle here, for me, anyway. Here, the whole idea is to sequester the universal requirements into one place. TONY (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:Accessibility has been raised at FAC as an area we've neglected in reviews; I think there are some color implications there, and since tables make use of color, you all might want to come up to speed in that area (I'm not up to speed on how lists work with accessibility, so can't help; so far, Rick Block seems to be the person to ask). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I've skimmed through the above discussions, but read them in depth, so I apologize if these points have been mentioned before.
  • I would like to see some kind of basic definition of a list added to the criteria (similar to #1 in the old policy). Something like "A list fits naturally fit together to form a notable topic; and is defined in terms of a manageable size for an encyclopedic article."
  • 1 through 3 - No problems with those, although perhaps the word our should be replaced with Wikipedia.
  • 4 - It could be worded better. Using the term "if practical" could be seen as a loophole.
  • 5 - Again "Appears finished" seems like a loophole, allowing for people to leave out some stuff they can't source, as long as the list basically appears finished.
  • 6 - No qualms here.
  • 7 - I'm not sure about this one. A list should definitely be visually appealing, but it seems like it is open to vast differences in interpretation. For example, I find that a lot of our discographies leave a lot to be desired in this area.
  • 8 - See #6
• Anyway, I think I like Colin's proposal the best, although Tony1's second one is worded better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scorpion. I suppose it would be useful if I make a fourth version out of Colin's and my take on the feedback. I suspect some of it won't be hard, but some will be, and that I'll have to mark with colour the areas in which I need further help. In a day or so? TONY (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear other opinions on whether the core stuff should be #1 or moved to the lead, and whether it is useful to merge the "comprehensive" 4/5/6 topics. I'm happy to accept Tony's points on those issues, but they're not my preference.

Wrt to loopholes. We have to find a balance between saying nothing (such as about visual appeal) and being very precise (for which we may never achieve consensus such as with an absolute rule on redlinks). Having subjective aspects to the criteria is no bad thing -- I sometimes felt that FL was rather too objective, which set the bar low. I didn't intend "appear finished" to mean "almost finished". Only that nothing on WP is ever cast in stone. But a reader viewing the page should see something worth publishing, rather than a work in progress. Alternative phrasing suggestions welcome. Colin°^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that the core stuff remain #1. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused discussion

Resolved

 – I'll post in Proposal 3 --Dweller (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is confusing and off-putting to anyone "late" to it. What we should be doing is cracking, point by point, the contentious issues. We need a separate section where people can discuss, for example, the "owned" point, so all debate on that matter is kept together, it can be crafted and consensus to adopt or reject can emerge. At the moment, we have various variations on a theme popping up.

I have strong opinions on many of the points being raised, but have no idea where to place them. I therefore propose we create subsections, headed by a concise precis of its issue, paste into it some wording and crack on with analysing it in detail.

Maybe it's just because my brain's limited and everyone else can cope with the way this is going, but we're attempting to do a large, important and (most relevantly) complex task here, and it strikes me that the best way to do that is to simplify the admin of it as much as possible. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why a green box clearly setting out a full proposal and criterion-by-criterion comments below it are confusing. Can't you read through them? Can't you post your own "strong opinions below that? Splintering the discussion is not the way to go. That would be to make it complex. It seems to me that we're approaching a workable version; it's certainly not as confusing and complicated as the existing criteria. I'm soon to post another green box that modifies Colin's Version 3. I'm interested to see your views before that. TONY (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

After I posted the 3rd proposal, there were two competing drafts and I didn't want to suggest mine superseded Tony's. It might be confusing to know which draft to suggest changes to. However, it appears that Tony likes the 3rd enough to use that as a base to work on. It is a long discussion, so if anyone feels there is an issue raised further up that is still "open", you could repeat it down here to save "late comers" having to read the whole thing. We could then consider archiving some of it. The "variations" are at the moment all quite different as we are trying to boil down the essence of the criteria and find a good way to frame the rules. As we approach consensus on that, it will make it easier to discuss the finer points of #8, or whatever. Colin°^Talk 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been around long enough to know that my brain works differently from others'. I'll post in Proposal 3. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "if anyone feels there is an issue raised further up that is still "open", you could repeat it down here." I feel the matter of where/how to include what you refer to as the "core stuff" (including the Ownership Policy) is still open. Should that be repeated here? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Evans, this is really not the place for your argument. I don't think anyone here has agreed with your assumption that this is an appropriate location for dealing with ownership. Please take the issue further up the chain, or it will appear to be obstructive to a task that is already challenging. TONY (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you misunderstand and have misread my comment above.Ownership is not the only issue here,Tony. The issue here is what Colin calls the "core stuff" which includes all of the major policies. Please do not mis-quote my comment above which references all the core policies. Yes, Ownership may be a particular concern addressed in other comments, but my comment above is a direct response to Colin's reference to the much broader issue of "core stuff". I am interested in how all of the core policies are treated in this discussion, not just Ownership. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposal (4)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), non-free content and what Wikipedia is not—a featured list has the following attributes.

1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and membership criteria of the list.
3. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items.
4. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings, table sort facilities, and annotations.
5. Style. It complies with Wikipedia's styleguides, in particular the Manual of Style and its subpages.
6. Visual appeal. It is visually appealing, making suitable use of use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour, has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text, and has a minimal proportion of red links.
7. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for vandalism reverts and edits made in response to the featured list process.

OK, here's my rationale in a nutshell:

• I can't overemphasise how these criteria should be short and sweet, crisp and clear; especially, short. In this respect, I think they might serve as a model for other featured criteria—particularly the FA criteria—which are unnecessarily long and complex, IMO.
• There are too many problems in explicitly linking to guidelines and policies (clunky, long list, problematic items in the lists of contents and guidelines too, as I pointed out above). IMO, it's better just to keep to the "requirements for all WP content", as does the lead to the FA criteria. Putting them in Cr 1 so that reviewers may cite that number is redundant, since nominators will need to be told exactly which policy or guideline is at issue, not just "breach of Cr 1". I'm afraid we shouldn't be here unless we know about these universal requirements, at least vaguely, and are able to respond when they're cited. For example, including copyright in the FA criteria has never forced the issue there; they rely totally on the presence of reviewers who care about it and know how to insist. Same with citations/factual accuracy, frankly (but see below, because I've broken my rule and included those—your advice, please ...). Before I finish on this, I don't want users at large to get the idea that our universal requirements are not taken seriously, and somehow need to be stamped out here to remind people. Bad signal, don't you think?
• Red links and blank squares: too-hard basket, as Dweller is saying—in any case, isn't it more flexibly covered under "Visual appeal"?
• Scorpion's query about "practical"—OK, let's retain the existing mention of "dynamic" lists, which seems more objective a distinction.
• I've changed the grammar of the bold subtitles after Colin's objection.
• Because MoS involves lots more than prose, it's in a separate point.
• I'm sorry if I've missed feedback that I should have integrated. The ownership stuff makes it hard to hunt through. PLEASE, sequester further stuff about ownership in a separate section. TONY (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the following comments were made on an earlier draft of #4

It is better than #2 but still misses some of the aspects of a featured list that I think are important, some longstanding, some new. I think we've reached the point where you'd phrase it one way and I'd phrase it another, I'd mention this, you'd ignore that. We desperately need a serious level of participation from reviewers and nominators who are active at FLC. It is only with experience of regular failings or strengths that we can draft some criteria that are helpful.

• I think there is merit in listing our policies and we've gone from "excellent but move to the lead" to "clunky" and dropped altogether. I don't think repeating them sends out the wrong signal. The level of WP experience among FL nominators is generally lower than at FA. It does no harm to remind folk that these are non-negotiable requirements. Failing WP:V is the most common fault I see. So one does wonder if nominators do take them seriously.
• Earlier you suggested dropping links to content policies and guidelines. Perhaps but not for the reasons you give. If some of our guidelines are troublesome, not linking to them won't make them go away.
• "Comprehensiveness" hasn't incorporated the "appear finished" and "more than a bare list" points. I'm trying to come up with new criteria that help raise the standard, so would like those criteria discussed rather than chucked away too quickly.
• I think both you and I liked "if practical" but Scorpion thought it was a loophole. I'd like this debated further as the old text (you restored) of dynamic list is actually worse. The words "dynamic list" require definition and the linked template merely says "an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness" without really giving a reason. The wording at "incomplete list" takes us to a stale wikiproject rather than a guideline. It is all rather circular: "a list may be allowed to be incomplete... if it is an incomplete list". I believe "practical" handles the situations where a list of thousands or millions might be expected; where the list can't be complete since not every instance is documented; where a complete list would be huge and of little practical value; etc. It also incorporates a solution to the Arsenal FLRC. If a nominator can give a practical reason for curtailing the scope, and it is a reasonable one, then why not.
• "Factual accuracy" is actually not a WP requirement. Meeting WP:V is not the same thing as being accurate (correct). So those bold words are at odds with policy. You ask about the need to repeat this policy and not the others. I think FL/FA used to require inline citations more than policy demanded, but perhaps WP:V is no so different now. The "where appropriate" clause still applies and plenty undynamic short lists can be sourced to one or two bulleted references.
• Is there a good reason to drop "and its subpages" from the MoS requirement? You may disagree with some of them, but as long as they remain consensus-agreed guidelines, they count.
• I don't see the need to split "images" from other aspects of visual appeal.
• Lastly, and most importantly. No, the issue of linking is not handled by "visual appeal". I know you have a problem with blue and red text being visually distracting, but the issue of whether to link or not and whether that link should point to something useful (or anything) is far more than just aesthetics. The "linking articles" text is currently our #1 criterion. I won't see that dropped without a fight (well, a discussion that involves significant consensus for change). Here's my take on list-entry linking:
  • If the entry subject has a reasonable chance of a Wikipedia article, it should be a link. This is quite a different requirement from "if the entry subject is notable, it should have a link". Notability is a lower threshold designed to protect articles from deletion. It has little bearing on whether an article stands much chance of existing in the first place. For people in the past, a reasonable test for this is whether they'd have an obituary or not. If you have an obituary, you've got the material to write a short article.
  • Failure on the above is the only reason for making an entry black to avoid it being red. Removing red links merely to pass FL is a sin.
  • A list with too many redlinks isn't "useful". There's that word that Tony thinks doesn't mean much. I think it means a lot and is something worth considering when judging a wiki list. Let's not fall out over it. We have different viewpoints and that's fine. Another reason why I'd love more participants here.
  • Creating lots of stubs so the links are blue won't impress me. I consider that just as bad as a list with lots of redlinks as it still isn't "useful". If I had my way, stublinks would be in the criteria along with redlinks. Remember, we're judging whether the list is useful to a reader now, not whether it is useful to editors trying to build articles round a topic.

OK. If these drafts are to stand any chance of maturing and improving on what we have, we need experienced reviewers and nominators to comment and to offer suggestions and new criteria. Colin°^Talk 22:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Item 5 seems a bit weak. If the standard for FL is to mean anything, it should be comparable with FA. Are there any FA articles with no in-line citations? Whilst it would be a nonsense to cite every species in List of birds in Canada and the United States to the same source, if you don't have at least some in-lines you end up with something like this, which I at least cannot see as being of the same standard. I'd rather change the end of 5 to complemented by appropriate inline citations. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bit narky and personal in tone, Colin. Have I been narky and personal towards you? I resent it, frankly. There's a lot of you, you, you, in your comments. It's accusatory, and often, you're wrongly ascribing assumptions/believes to me ("You may disagree with some of [the MOS subpages]"—actually, I don't agree with all of the central MOS page, and MOS subpages are part of MOS. There's no need to explicitly mention them, but I have no objection it they are mentioned. "The "linking articles" text is currently our #1 criterion. I won't see that dropped without a fight ..." Well, your version took it out, and I used that as the basis. Who wants to fight? Not me; but you do, apparently.) I spent a lot of time and effort which I find now slightly put down in your constant requests for other people to participate. I'd welcome it, but they can't be forced. There are clearly ownership issues going on here, for which I have no respect. TONY (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, about the tone. The reason "you" and "I" feature in the criticism is because frankly only you and I are making any proposals or significant rationales. If I'm wrong about why you dropped "and its subpages" from MoS then, sorry. You seemed enthusiastic about version 3, which was nice, so I was disappointed that version 4 lost some of what I was trying to add. I should have been more positive towards you about the bits I liked rather than just mention the bits I didn't. I'm not very good at that.

Version 3 still had a requirement for few red links and I hoped that other WP guidelines would cover the need to have links in the first place. Don't interpret "dropped without a fight" strongly. I did rephrase it immediately afterwards. The point is that IMO that's an important characteristic of a featured list and always has been. By removing all mention of links from the criteria, we are telling nominators and reviewers that it is no longer relevant. Why?

I too have spent a lot of time on this but where's the support? I'm not even a regular FL reviewer any longer, and you're mostly FA. So how can we "force" these criteria on the rest if they don't say what they like and what they need. Ownership? No. I didn't write any of the current criteria apart from expanding 1a. And as for version 3, it isn't important. My request for other participants isn't because I hate your version and want someone else to say so. How can two people achieve "community consensus"? If you can find a way of handling links, version 4 is good enough to get my support. Colin°^Talk 09:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't mean red links, I presume? You mean the linking of FLs to related articles? Can you clarify? I don't see that in your Version 3 .... TONY (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because I suspect that a lot of people would rather it be nutted out here among a few, and when there's some kind of agreement, taken to them for supports/opposes/comments. They have wisdom, those people, because a complex proposal becomes just impossible to develop if too many people are involved at the start. I regard these Revised Proposals not as some attempt to elbow others out, but a chance to evolve the wording and provoke comment, even if it's from you alone; but Scorpion and Dweller et al have put in rather smaller comments, and it was those I responded to as well as yours, specifically on red links. I agree with you that red links should be discouraged, but Dweller was very insistent. I think they look horrible, and would prefer to risk a delayed linking of an item if, perchance, an article is created on it without our realising it. I'm quite willing to argue with Dweller about that. The alternative is to write stubs for them, damn it. Now, Colin, can we work together to move this forward? We seem to have a stumbling block about whether the universal criteria should be explicitly linked. I still think not, and that somewhere we might have a checklist for nominators and reviewers (even in the instructions?). But I can't cope with the idea of forcing people to comply with some of those zany "policy" or "semi-policy" pages such as "All the web", which in any case is inconsistent with other guidelines. By explicitly linking to a list in which it appears, we're saying that you need to maximise the linked items in your text: it's a requirement for a FL; at the moment, most folk simply ignore such idiocy on WP. I've tried to have it moved out of policy status, but gave up after enduring a torrent of unpleasantness from its one, dogged guardian. TONY (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this set of criteria is fundamentally sound, and most of my worries are related to minor phrasing issues. (Structure. "It is easy to navigate, including section headings, table sort facilities and annotations where useful"; Images should have "'alt' text", not just "alt"). My main issue is that the criteria do explicitly say something about scope. The scope of a list should be clearly defined and sensible (e.g. you couldn't have "football seasons 1992, 1996, 1999 and 2002", but you could have "football seasons 1992-2002"). Tompw (talk) (review) 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Tom, except that that odd sequence of football seasons would lack notability as a topic, wouldn't it (contravening the policy)? I can't see the need to legislate explicitly to stop stupidity like that. TONY (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• What is the purpose of including this phrase: "-in particular, naming conventions, take a neutrality, contain no original research, be verifiability, citations of reliable sources (taking particular care with living persons), non-free content and what Wikipedia is not-". That's redundent with "meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content" and can only cause confusion and possibly RfC or ArbCom activity as it looks like an attempt by a handful of contributors to select,classify and prioritize the importance of some content requirements/policies over others. Also the grammar within the phrase is way off ("be verifiability"/"take a neutrality") but I get the feeling I am not allowed to edit/fix what's inside the box? I think it is crucial that more editors with more experience be involved in this discussion or else it should be shut down before we end up with a new FLC which is more dysfunctional than the existing one. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All the content policies are listed apart from Attack pages, which is more a problem at the AfD end of the spectrum than FLC. So, I'm happy we haven't been selective with policy (all or nothing). The few guidelines chosen for mention (citations, reliable sources and non-free content) are the ones that cause most problems for nominators. There's no agenda here. Colin°^Talk 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony has revised version 4 since Tom and I commented, plus the grammar has been fixed since Grant's comment.

• I'm pretty happy with the latest revision. One point: all the bold words are aspects of a list that we review (the non-bold words explain the attributes of a featured list we are looking for). The exception is Styleguides. Could this just be Style? BTW: My watchlist radar detects that The Rambling Man plans to look in. Colin°^Talk 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "Style". TONY (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is a pretty good stab. I'll review it again later today, but it looks like a version I'd support. NB - are we saying in 6, that we could support the promotion of a list with no images at all? --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, 6 doesn't change the current wording, which to me allows the promotion of a nomination that has no images. Has there ever been such a nomination? It would be rare, I suppose. I can imagine that a list could be valuable, nicely written and constructed, etc, and be hard to illustrate, especially if there are problems in justifying the use of non-free images ... But a rare case. TONY (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a requirement. Over at FAC, even 0.999... managed four images, which I think was heroic. I cannot conceive of a topic that could not be illustrated in some manner, and if it did happen, then the Directors can IAR or change the criteria. I'd rather not give wriggle-room for those unwilling to be creative in finding or making appropriate images like Image:999 Perspective.png. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A quick search turns up List of wealthiest foundations (if one ignores the country flag symbols), Periodic table (large version), List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Lost episodes. That's too many for me to be happy with IAR if you think those lists should remain unadorned. I don't think many of the TV series season episode lists are significantly improved by a (fair use) image of the DVD box set. Colin°^Talk 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can recognise a persuasive argument when I see one. --Dweller (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there shouldn't be a requirement for images, it would instantly kill a lot of the episode list FLs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I think I can support it. However, can we also include a basic definition of a list somewhere in the criteria? I've seen several FLCs where such a definition has come in useful. Something along the lines of "A list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's been 2 days and only 5 editors involved in evaluation of Proposal #4 with 95% of the discussion being between Colin and Tony. I suggest the facvt is that there is no community interest in dealing with this issue right now and that it would be counterproductive to implement such an important procedural change based upon such a lack of interest. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr 6, "...formatting, tables, and colour, has images if they..." - it's a personal thing but I'd split this sentence after "colour". While it makes the criterion two sentences, I think it just makes for easier reading and, after all, we need to appeal and attract folks who haven't been to FLC before. I'll add more... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr 7 "...its content does not change significantly from day to day, except for vandalism reverts..." - do we need to include vandalism as an acceptable cause of article instability? I think that's inherently obvious. WP:FAC doesn't worry about this (as far as I can see) so not sure why FLC should, especially considering (at the moment) FLs don't make mainpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cr 4 ".. annotations..." - is this clear? I'm not sure what it means... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposal (5)

A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—especially official english Wikipedia policies—a featured list consists of articles nominated and selected as such by the community at large by consensus. There will be a limit of 10 selections per month and 100 per year.

• Rather than just try to evaluate the suggested changes by Tony and Colin, I'm also putting a proposal of my own forward. I think that the varying subject matter of articles, e.g. BLP, precludes the workability of listing subjective criteria like "stability" in the FLC. Therefore, I've simplified the criteria and added a quantity governour which together should force to the top our "best work." Now, I do not want to see my edit/proposal removed from here because this discussion does not belong to any one editor and if any one editor wants to control a discussion on this topic they can try to do that better on their own talk page. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This isn't really a "Featured list criteria" proposal, but a proposal to completely change the way featured lists are selected and processed. Other than meeting core policy, this removes all documented selection criteria and leaves all judgment in the hands of those reviewers who comment each month. The best place to discuss this is at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Colin°^Talk 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; this proposal change is far too radical to be placed on a discussion page for the criteria, of which this does not contain any. It should be moved to WT:FLC. Gary King (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just leave it here for another 2 days and then I'll move it myself if nobody else wants it here after 48 hours from now. I think it belongs here because it does have criteria (consisting of a nomination, consensus selection process and strict adherence to official english Wikipedia policies), does no harm and is not confusing. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm late to the party, as ever, but sorry, saying this isn't confusing is confusing. So 10 a month, then when you get to mid-September, no more promotions since you've hit your max? Why? Why prevent gifted and thorough editors getting hundreds of FL promotions in a year as long as their work is the "best" Wikipedia can offer? Not sure why you seek to arbitrarily constrain the promotions... I'll be back on RP (4) soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)