Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

Please note that this talk page is for discussion related to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Off-topic discussions, including asking for peer reviews or asking someone to promote an FLC you are involved in, are not appropriate and may be removed without warning. Thank you for your cooperation.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21
Threads older than 10 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Tove Lo/archive1[edit]

Please note that I have already supported at this FLC and am therefore conflicted out of closing it. One of the delegates will have to do the job here. Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-automatic archiving process[edit]

In case people haven't seen it, there's now a WMFLabs tool, linked to from all Page Histories (via "fix dead links"), that with (almost) one click will archive every reference on a page. Nearly instantaneously- like, 5-10 seconds. Given that it's so easy to do, and so easy to find, @WP:FLC director and delegates: I'm considering making archiving links a requirement as part of the source review process- I haven't pushed for it before because it can be a huge hassle to do manually, no matter the benefits, but if it takes <30 seconds to do via a bot then it's hard to ignore. What do you two think? --PresN 03:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

404 not found? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started using it here. You have to do an OAuth login first, which is probably why the other URL didn't work. As well as "analysing" the page you need to click the box for "add archives to all URLs".— Rod ^talk 05:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

However in the case of Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset it only does the links in the lead rather than those in the table.— Rod ^talk 05:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a decent tool with limitations... If we could get a "raw list" of WP:FL then we could submit a bot request to run over the 3000+ FLs and archive links (although wih the caveat that Rod's noted, possibly excepting refs in tables...) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not yet found a way to "add archives to all URLs" if you do a big list - all it does is add archive versions for broken links rather than doing it for all URLs. This may be a feature I've not found yet for submission of lots of articles at the same time.— Rod ^talk 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right, all the manual ones I'm doing are brilliant. Maybe it's a feature request, or maybe there's another reason why the Bot won't work on batches to that extent, possibly because it could occupy the bot for hours on a single job (one task can take 20 seconds, and up to 5,000 articles can be queued - nearly 28 hours...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Rodw I tried reporting the failure to archive refs in a table as a bug, but failed. Three times. Perhaps you could try it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite its few limitations, the tool appears very helpful. If one can add archive-links for 50 or more ULRs in one edit, that's commendable work. Saves a lot of time. --Skr15081997 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I went to report that it is not working in tables but the interface has been disabled.— Rod ^talk 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

TRM let Cyberpower678 know on his talk page, it's a bug and it's next in the queue after what he's working on now. --PresN 18:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, I'm not a big fan of forcing people to do this. There are always links that the bot can't archive (because of robots.txt), and I've noticed some issues with how the bot handles date formatting. It has a tendency to add unwanted spaces in single-digit dates, and I saw one article in which it recently added archival dates in a completely different date format than what was in the rest of the article. Of course, I'm probably just biased against it because it's jamming my watchlist with edits that I'll have to check later. :-( Anyway, let's see how archiving the table references works before considering this some new requirement. I foresee a high risk of losing editors who don't want to do this if we try mandating it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Rodw it's not working on your particular article(s) because they use a funky template which incorporates the references, rather than "standard" citation templates. Fair enough, I don't suppose the bot can see its way through every feasible template implementation of references.... I guess if we use such templates, we have to accept that manual insertion of archive links is the only solution at this time. Meanwhile, all other tables which use templates such as {{cite web}} work just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The use of Template:EH listed building row seems be be the standard for listed building (and ancient monument) lists. Is that the issue or is it the Template:NHLE one which I have been strongly advised to use, after the format of URLs for Images of England was changed & the template meant thousands could be repaired more easily.— Rod ^talk 06:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We'd need to check, but the answer I got was that it was the use of "non-standard reference templates", presumably ones which obfuscate the standard ... url = | title = ... coding. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi guys I decided to chime in with some info. @Rodw: The reason the bot ignored your template is because it apparently is a non-standard citation template that auto generates the URL. So it can't know what URL is associated with it, and since it's non-standard it won't fidget with it to prevent possible breakage. I would also figure if you're using a template that auto-generates the URL, that in the event of a broken URL, the template itself can be updated to fix the problem instead of having to add archive URLs to it. @The Rambling Man: The bot takes slightly longer for a single page analysis than it does with a bot queue submission. However the bot queue submission tool does not come with the option to archive all non-dead references, and will use the bot's default setup for this wiki. This is for disruption prevention reasons. The tool is geared around ease of use, but also has anti-abuse and strong security measures in place. That one time you encountered the tool being disabled was because a security exploit was discovered. Fortunately it was only exploitable by old users predating 2006, but still serious. @Giants2008: The newest version of the bot has siginificant improvements to the date handling systems and the new version to be released soon, v1.3.2, addresses the excessive space issues with date formatting, as well as several other issues. Hope this helps clear some things up.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Leo Carrillo on stage and screen[edit]

The article heavily relies on IMDB, which is not considered a RS. I had mentioned this problem at the article's talk page almost two years ago, but it didn't get any response. I recently pinged the editor involved in its FLC, again I didn't get any response. Please do the needful. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with FLC? If you wish to nominate it for review, WP:FLRC is the place to air your concerns, we're not going to do that for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yash, I echo what TRM says. While I don't blame you for posting here as FLRC's talk page isn't nearly as busy as this one, you're better off just nominating the list at FLRC if you feel it doesn't meet FL standards. My general experience as a Wikipedian is that you're usually better off trying to make a needed edit yourself rather than waiting for somebody else to do it, since you never know when another editor will get around to it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and Maile66 obviously had their reasons for removing your post two minutes after you added it, without comment or edit summary. Suggest you formally nominate it for review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump[edit]

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Maximum number of nominations[edit]

So right now the instructions state:

Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

I can completely understand this when we had sixty or seventy promotions a month, or individuals would nominate five of the same kind of list at a time, but right now I don't really understand this restriction. I have around five FLCs which I'd like to list but right now that means it'll be about a year before the last one gets any traction. They aren't intrinsically related to one another (i.e. there's going to be limited commonality of problems) and I'm a committed editor who can cope with more than just one item on my watchlist. We are often compared (mostly negatively) to GAN, who have no such restriction on nominations. I would argue that, as a minimum, we reduce this from "should not" to "it is recommended that a second nomination is added..." and allow Giants2008 and his delegates (!) to decide whether or not the second and subsequent nominations should stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Delegates? Who are those guys? Yeah, I'm cool with relaxing this restriction- It's pretty clear to me that there's a dozen or so editors that have a queue of nominations where the limiting factor is that they can only really do one at a time. (Not me... I finally burned through my queue after 3 years running). How should we do it? Just the wording change you proposed (you can add a second and we'll cut it if you don't keep up), or explicitly allow as many as you want, or "Users may request on the talk page to add more than one nomination"? The wording you proposed would let you nominate 2 at a time, but not all 5; was that intentional? --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I wasn't dead set on any specific wording, just the principle of allowing multiple nominations at the discretion of the FLC brigade... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no real problems with a change, but don't want to see a situation where we have more noms than editors to review them. I'd be against allowing unlimited noms, as I wouldn't want to see FLC overwhelmed, but allowing two at once probably wouldn't do any harm. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess flooding is a fair point, but GAN manfully struggles through at a rate already not dissimilar to FLC, and they have no limit at all. If lists were of a similar nature, i.e. cookie-cutter lists which we used to see a lot of, then I would object to more than one at a time, but as long as they're different enough (per FLC dir/deleg) then I see no real harm. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)