Wikipedia talk:Featured lists

Categorisation

Moved to User talk:Crisco 1492

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

I believe the feature list status of this article needs to be addressed, it was promoted when each goal was cited by BBC Sport. [1] However since this old edit by Mattythewhite I would fail any featured listing status. I was pretty clear in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane/archive1. Can we demote the article until addressed? I am seriously concerned by this issue, as soccerway does not discuss goals. Govvy (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

BBC Sport and Soccerway are both reliable sources so either *should* be fine. However, after BBC Sport recently revamped the format of their online match reports, some data including goal times no longer appear. For example, see their report for France v England on 13 June 2017 in which Kane scored. I would argue therefore that Soccerway is more appropriate. Whether they "discuss" the goals is immaterial; this is a list, after all, not an article which provides detailed descriptions of Kane's goals. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:WAWARDS are back

Letting any watcher or regulars of Featured lists that the W Awards are back up and running since it's long sleep of 10 years. It'd be helpful if you'd like to become a reviewer or nominate people who you think fit the criteria in any of the awards (Bronze, Silver, Golden, Platinum) and give any suggestions on awards or changes that you think should happen in the talk page! Thanks, W Award Coordinator Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Refine WP:FLCR #6

WP:FLCR #6 currently states: Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

I propose changing it to: Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars, community discussions (such as WP:AFD, WP:RM or WP:RFC) and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.

I think this clarifies existing expectations: that the article should be pretty much settled when brought to WP:FLC, unless something comes up in the review process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

During FLC, we may note ongoing discussions and choose to wait on the outcome to see if it affects how the list meets other criteria, but in the long term after a successful nomination, there's nothing inherently wrong with a discussion – it's a core part of the editing process. I'm concerned this would imply that FLs should not form the basis of discussions, which I feel is inappropriate for FLCR to dictate. (I could also see this getting twisted around – say, to imply a FL should not be eligible for AFD – but that may just be me.) If a discussion significantly changes the list (e.g., by merging content or changing the selection criteria), then it could just be reconsidered via WP:FLRC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, FLCR isn't just "these are the criteria to meet to nominate something for FLC", it's "these are the criteria to meet to be an FL", so saying that something no longer meets the criteria to be an FL just because someone wants to move the page or it's part of an RFC isn't right. It feels more correct for something about this to be in the box at the top of WP:FLC, if anywhere. --PresN 23:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could change the first bullet on the nomination procedure at FLC to: 1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. It is recommended that the list have no other open discussions. (bold = new text) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

PresN, your comment that it's "these are the criteria to meet to be an FL", so saying that something no longer meets the criteria to be an FL just because someone wants to move the page or it's part of an RFC isn't right doesn't line up with the current wording of the criteria, nor its actual purpose. The current wording of the criteria state that the article shouldn't be the subject of an editing war. Does that mean I should send FLs to WP:FLRC every time an edit war starts? Obviously not. The purpose of the criteria are meant for reviewers to use while reviewing the lists. Obviously, #6 is stating that you shouldn't nominate an article that isn't currently stable, not that an FL should be removed because it has become unstable. I am merely pointing out that you shouldn't nominate an article undergoing a community discussion. It is giving a broader set of examples, not just an edit war (how many times have you actually seen a list nominated during an edit war?). I will also note that the wording of the criteria regarding discussions that stem from the WP:FLC review process can still continue.

RunningTiger123, I am fine with that addition. I think my main point is that "stability" should be broader than just edit wars. Generally things should be resolved before nominating, notwithstanding things that come up during the FLC process. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked back to see where this came from and see if there was any justification for the wording. Here's how WP:FACR #1e (essentially the same as FLCR #6) came to be:

• The very first version of FACR (from April 2004) stated a featured article should have "no ongoing edit wars".
• By January 2005, stability was an explicit requirement.
• The "no edit war" item was added back by September 2005.
• By August 2006, the wording was pretty close to today's wording.

Turns out most of this was done without discussion so it was kind of a dead end; I'm just leaving this now for anyone who's curious (at least, I thought it was interesting). RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Added RunningTiger123's proposed wording change to the FLC instructions. --PresN 16:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I was planning on promoting a list into a FL, but I came across an issue. I could only find primary sources (specifically official government websites). Would it still be fine if I used them? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 11:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sangsangaplaz: If that's all you can find for specific details then it may be okay, but I'd be very surprised that there are no secondary sources about the governors of a state, seeing as they are major public figures. --PresN 03:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at how obscure some states are in India. Especially the northeast. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Dark mode changes

@CanonNi, I've reverted your recent changes that were meant to implement dark mode fixes of some kind. I did so because it completely removed all of the colours for me, a non-dark mode user. Not sure if something was screwed up or not, but my understanding was it was just supposed to be tweaked for anybody utilizing a dark mode setting, not for all users in general. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh sorry about that. I'll do some testing in my sandbox first and (hopefully) implement a proper tweak. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries @CanonNi, thank you for your efforts. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)