Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

The closure log edit · history · watch · refresh Comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs), PresN (talk · contribs), and Hey man im josh (talk · contribs), and other notes of pertinence. Should you wish to contact the delegates, you can use the {{@FLC}} ping facility. FLC Promoted List of Memphis Chicks (Southern League) seasons (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of governors of Anambra State (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of Private Practice episodes (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of accolades received by Barbie (film) (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of Parks and Recreation episodes (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) Estonian Figure Skating Championships (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) List of governors of Akwa Ibom State (FLC) – A consensus existed for promotion. (PresN) Unsuccessful List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2022) (FLC) – No consensus for promotion after 2 months. (PresN) FLCs of special note We now have many lists in need of more attention. See here for the oldest ones. Please do what you can to contribute to these nominations! FLRC Kept None Delisted Seinfeld season 2 (FLRC) – A consensus existed for demotion. (PresN) Seinfeld season 3 (FLRC) – A consensus existed for demotion. (PresN) FLRCs of special note None

For a "table of contents"-only list of candidates, see Wikipedia:Featured lists/Candidate list and Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer. To send a message to the FLC director and the FLC delegates, use the {{@FLC}} template.

What to do with season lists

Over the last 6+ months, starting with Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/30 Rock season 1/archive1, there's been a consensus built against the idea that lists of "episodes in a season of a TV show" should be considered lists, much less FLs. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists/Archive 2#FLs for television seasons last September that reached a rough consensus that no further season lists should be sent to FLC, but stopped short of what to do with the existing lists. Since that discussion, starting with 30 Rock season 1, 12 lists have been delisted (1 season of 30 Rock, 10 seasons of Bleach, and 1 season of One Piece), with another 3 30 Rock seasons at FLRC right now. It's been a relatively small group of people at the FLRCs, but no one has opposed yet.

The problem, then, is this: there are 62 un-nominated lists at WP:FL-Media-Episodes-By season. At the current pace that would take almost 3.5 years to nominate at FLRC. RunningTiger123 kept it to 2 simultaneous nominations, and Sjones23 has pushed it to 3 this month, but that's a long time to mechanically churn through these lists, especially given that no one has ever opposed or even really raised a discussion point since the first nominations. On the flip side, it's hard to tell to what degree we have a big consensus- it's really 5 or 6 people hashing this out, which isn't much, but if no one has opposed after 8 months it seem unlikely that anyone will.

So, the question to the FLC community at large is this: what should we do with the season lists? Should we continue on as-is? Nominate 62 lists as a block? Decide that some are different than others and exempt them? Keep on as-is but allow X nominations at a time? Stop nominating because they're fine and the TV project making new rules isn't enough to justify delisting? I'm open to all suggestions, but I don't like having a 3+ year process to arrive at the same result that we could have done in a month, so I'd like to get this sorted out. --PresN 22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Nominate them all en masse as a block, but if during the examination process, someone determines that a particular article (or whatever) should stay, you can remove it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Instead of bulk nominating everything at once (which could become messy should anyone object to individual lists), maybe we could go by series? For most shows with multiple FL seasons, those seasons were promoted around the same time and have similar qualities, so assessing them together seems feasible. By my count, that would trim the list from 62 nominations to 21. I would also be fine grouping one-off seasons into a single nomination; there are 8 of those, so that would further reduce the count to 14 nominations. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the above proposals, as I was the one who did the mass FLRCs for the remaining three FLs of 30 Rock. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We could also list all potential articles here to allow interested reviewers the chance to take a cursory look to see if any of them might be controversial or otherwise deserving of being kept as FL, and then after, say, a week, any articles that weren't identified could be nominated en masse. There's no reason to drag this process out any longer than it needs to be if odds are good they're going to be de-listed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to the party here, but I'd also be fine with any sort of mass nomination, whether that be by series, or altogether. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

From a purely practical standpoint, how would a bulk nomination need to be set up? I'm assuming FACBot won't work right if we try to list multiple pages to demote in a single nomination. I suppose any demotions could be done manually, but I wonder if it would be easier to create nominations for every page and state in the rationale section that all discussion is to occur at a single location. This would also probably make it easier for tracking pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts to list everything. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

If "episodes in a season of a TV show" can't be considered lists then are they considered articles? Should they exist at all, or be merged with "episodes of a TV show" (no separate list for individual seasons). Easternsahara (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Also why aren't they considered lists? Easternsahara (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured lists/Archive 2#FLs for television seasons and FLRCs such as this one for more, but essentially, there has been a general shift towards season articles being promoted through GAN/FAC instead of FLC, coupled with the expectation that season articles should have prose sections such as production and reception. There are certainly cases where a season article lacks detail and could be merged back into a list of episodes, but there are plenty of cases where seasons have enough coverage to warrant a standalone article, and once those types of season articles are fleshed out, they should look much more like articles than lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with the general shift that reception and other details should be included, so I support removal of all season lists, indiscriminately. An argument could perhaps be made to remove all lists except those which do not have reliable sources covering production, reception, etc. Easternsahara (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

From what I've seen, people have argued that season articles without production, reception, etc. fail to comprehensively [cover] the defined scope per FLCR #3a, so I don't think that argument needs to be considered. Either it's thorough and looks like an article (and therefore should go the GA/FA route), or it's not and it shouldn't be featured content. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like we're in agreement that entire series can be nominated at once. I agree with RunningTiger123 that the best way to do it is to make individual nomination pages for each season but just have a combined discussion at only one of them. --PresN 13:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Do like a requested move of multiple things but for removing featured article (if that makes sense). Easternsahara (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've created a single nomination for Seinfeld seasons 2 and 3 – figured it would be best to start with a small batch. Please feel free to comment on the bulk nomination format I used. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Co-nominations

Hi there. I was wondering whether it would be possible to nominate a third list if the two previous lists have already garnered considerable support and it's two users co-nominating all of them instead of only one. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alavense: Hmm, I'd say the rule is "on a case-by-case basis", but in this case I have no concerns given the track record for Spanish municipalities nominations, so go right ahead. --PresN 00:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, PresN. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Triple Nomination

I was told that there was a maximum of two nominations per person, User:Vanderwaalforces has three currently. I informed them on their 3rd nominations page already, but I just thought I should let the coordinators know. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually saw that but forgot to reply. I thought for FLC regulars, it (three) could be allowed, especially since it is not mounting pressure on me. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It might be fine but I would suggest asking the coordinators first before you try that. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stick with 2 at a time for now - you can leave the 3rd up for now since it already has reviews, but for the future. It's not just whether you can handle multiple nominations at a time - many of us could handle more than 2! - but ensuring that the queue as a whole isn't too onerous to get through. I let the Spanish municipality list go because they're joint nominations, but I'd prefer not to let anything else get a third because right now we're at about 8 weeks old at the bottom of the queue, and I'd like it to be more like 4-6 weeks. It really is a pain for everyone when there's 40 lists, all with 1 or 2 reviews so nothing is clearing. --PresN 01:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@PresN Gotcha! Thank you for your hard work, very much appreciated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary!

Just a coincidence, but it has been one year since my first FL promotion: World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count. Although my first experience here was in rescuing List of Olympic medalists in figure skating, which was up for FL removal. Thank you to everyone's kindness and patience over the past year. Lots more skating articles to go for year two. 😃 Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Question about Source Reviews

Is a spot check enough to pass source review or do you need to check every single source? Easternsahara (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Late reply: spot checks are sufficient. --PresN 00:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarification, are source reviews required?

I am bringing this here because of this comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates: "Many FLCs pass without spotchecks, see e.g. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Heritage Sites in Côte d'Ivoire/archive1." I was under the impression that source reviews were required for all FL nominations. @FLC director and delegates: asking for clarification. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we do require that FLCs pass a source review. There was a source review done for this FLC by Easternsahara, who I'll ping in case they want to comment. I believe that the original comment was referring to reviews that include checks for text-to-source integrity and close paraphrasing/plagiarism (not just formatting and the like), which FAC requires for first-time nominators, but I admittedly haven't gone through all of the conversation that followed on that page, though I'm surprised that an experienced user would have wanted to lessen the requirements at the GA process (which I don't remember being that onerous on the occasions that I had noms there). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Giants2008: To clarify, I have zero concerns with the Côte d'Ivoire review. My concern was with the statement that FLs did not require a source check. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I did do a spotcheck on the location and criteria for all the sites, so the roman numerals and (natural)/(cultural)/(mixed) indicator. I also checked the information in the description of some of the entries to see if it was in the sources and it was, I didn't think this was worth noting so I didn't. Tone is an experienced editor who has tons of FLs so I did a spotcheck and just passed it saying the sources were compliant with standards. In other places, where some sources aren't the best or if original research was done, I do note which sources are good, you can see this Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Michelin-starred restaurants in South Korea/archive1#Source_Review and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Iowa tornadoes/archive1#Easternsahara. Easternsahara (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)