Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Accessibility and its changes to tables

Would something like Joe Biden's presidential campaigns be possible to get to FL? Its considered a set index article because it used to look like this. I ask as 2/4 of Biden's presidential runs are at GA and I was considering get the other 2 to GA for a GT Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|OlifanofmrTennant}} It's considered a set index article because it just presents short descriptions four things with similar names, so a disambiguation page with extra content. To be a list, it would first need sources talking about the concept of his presidential campaigns as a whole, rather than any particular one, and then some sort of direct comparison between them. It would not be eligible for FL, though, with only 4 items. --PresN 22:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::That’s a shame, oh well thanks anyways Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|OlifanofmrTennant}} I suppose it would be question for WT:GTC to see if it would qualify, but you might be able to request a PR on the index instead? TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::If you expand it to "electoral campaigns of Joe Biden" it could become an FL. TheUzbek (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Electoral history of Joe Biden is an article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|PresN}} would Electoral history of Joe Biden be able to be FLCed? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::That looks pretty list-y to me, yeah. --PresN 18:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to start an open discussion about this as it is something I have picked up on and I'm not sure if it is breaking any rules but wanted to provide a space for a conversation. Cutesy ping to {{U|History6042}}, I want to make it clear that I'm not accusing you of anything or trying to devalue the work you've done but rather I have just noticed a pattern here and I'm not sure how to feel about it. Also pinging the reviewers of theses lists {{ping|MPGuy2824|ChrisTheDude|Expandinglight5|TheDoctorWho|Dylan620|Hey man im josh|OlifanofmrTennant|Arconning|SounderBruce}}. I've noticed that the Michelin-starred restaurants lists are being nominated in fast succession, often receiving very little feedback (in part probably due to their small size) and often contain a lot of repetitive material across pages. These lists include List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Toronto (review), List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Turkey (review), List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Dubai (review), List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Moscow (review), and List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Vancouver (review). As others have pointed out, these lists often don't include any information about the food scene in these areas and often prose is copy pasted from one article to the next. Again, I don't know if any rule breaking is happening here or if there needs to be a clarification in the FLC criteria but it's just something I've picked up on. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I do not personally see an issue as if they are passing then that means that the reviewers think it is fine. Also, they all do have stuff that isn't copy and pasted, Toronto has the Criticism section, Moscow has the exit of Michelin from Russia, Turkey has stuff about notable chefs with multiple awards, and Vancouver has the history of its guide and some minor criticsm. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree they should contain more context on the food scene. For example, I always include notes on the region's history for each of my NZ heritage lists. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Generalissima, I keep being told to add stuff about the food scene. However, I am fully sure what it means. Could you please give me a definition? History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll give you an example for where I live. My city has a very prominent brewery scene and as extension pub food is very popular here. So if we had any Michelin star restaurants in my area one could say "Despite vast brewery scene, no local breweries were nominated". There could also be focuses on economics in the area such as how Michelin stars can help small businesses stay afloat in the post Covid economy. Even my small province/city has quite a few notable dishes that my area is "known for" that would certainty interest anyone wanting to learn about recognized cuisine in my area. I'm sure others could expand on this. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 18:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, now I understand, thank you. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that some of the recent FLC don't have as much about the food scene as some other pages such as Washington, D.C.. Ideally there is information about history of certain cuisines, famous chefs from the specific region, etc. For the Moscow list, I was surprised it was promoted without a photo but ultimately multiple editors agreed it deserved promotion. Similar to some of the other recent approvals, I thought they would have more unique content specific to the region in order to be promoted, but again, editors felt they met the criteria for FLC.

:Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:The relevant criteria would be WP:FLCR #2: {{tq|It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.}} My two cents: the subjects are Michelin-starred restaurants, so there is zero expectation that the lead should cover broader food scenes. For instance, readers of List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Toronto can go to Cuisine of Toronto for more information about the city's food. That being said, I think the fact that the lists feel repetitive is a sign they've been split up more than necessary, and I would support merging lists to cover larger geographical regions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Currently they are done as Michelin reviews them so I do not think they should be merged. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Would the lists be too cumbersome if they were grouped by country? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, that's not entirely true; as I noted at the FLC for List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Iceland, the Nordic countries are a single guide split into multiple lists here. But even so, we don't have to match the way Michelin groups them. I think moving all of the entries for the United States (maybe excluding NYC) is reasonable, as would be a Canadian list and a Chinese list. Other merger options include a Nordic countries list and a Middle East or Arabian Peninsula list (List of Michelin-starred restaurants in Doha has only two entries, is that really worth a standalone list?). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Copenhagen is notable for is concentration of restaurants in the guide. However, the 3 in Iceland don't seem like enough for a stand alone list -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If needed I can go merge the Nordic list if the Michelin WikiProject members agree. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. Most of the lists have only a few entries. I think these lists would be better off done by country (excluding maybe the US as i believe that have more Michelin restaurants.IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::Also could fall under 3c {{tq|In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.}} (emphasis added) IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would also recommend merging lists wherever possible. Just because they are often published as city guides doesn't mean we have to divide them that way as well, especially when many cities don't have very many restaurants and these tables are quite small and simple. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The only issue with this is if they become to big they may be maintained less. For example, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, which are all large countries with lots of Michelin starred restaurants are the ones that don't have articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Creating new pages is indeed a good bit of work, but these are the some of the simplest tables there are. To think that a Spanish list would be any less maintained than separate lists for Madrid, Barcelona, etc. makes no sense. Merging existing lists is easy and then these are easy to update for a new guide. I'd say bigger lists of this type are more likely to be maintained when you have more eyes on them, rather than a smaller number of people looking at multiple pages. Reywas92^Talk 14:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not agree with some of the suggestions being made here. I do not think having a lot of detail about the local food scene outside the context of Michelin stars should be required, nor do I think we should be merging lists by country, etc. To the extent possible, the list names and geographic scopes should reflect the guides. Also, you can't really have it both ways -- including more info about local food scenes + merging lists by country/region. I am so glad to see lists of Michelin-starred restaurants being promoted and encourage History6042 to keep up the great work! If there are ways to make lists better, great!, but I think those discussions are more appropriate for individual list talk pages and the Michelin Guide task force (instead of FLC). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The reason I posted to the FLC talkpage is because there is some indication that they may not fully meet the FLC criteria. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I disagree with many of the suggestions above. Content about the dining scene and chefs are may what adds to making a list unique and "featured" but should not be required. Furthermore, I do not agree with merging short lists by country or other methods of combining. Ideally the lists are presented how Michelin publishes the guide/region. I think there is some small opportunity for combining some of the lists but I think these all should be discussed and agreed upon by the Michelin Guide task force. I have a few ideas but I haven't yet had the opportunity to raise them for discussion on the talk page of the task force. I encourage anyone interested to post ideas on the relevant talk pages or on the talk pages of the Michelin Guide task force. This task force has only been around for a short while and has accomplished significant improvements on Michelin Guide-related pages.

::::Expandinglight5 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Regarding {{tq|Content about the dining scene and chefs are may what adds to making a list unique and "featured" but should not be required}} I don't think anyone is saying that this is required for the lists but as you pointed out, for a featured level article a little more is expected. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I stand by my oppose !vote on the Vancouver list, which provides little prose context for the selection of the Michelin-starred restaurants within the greater food scene. There is no explanation of the geographic concentration, the choice of cuisine types, and the general history of the attempts to lure Michelin to the city, which are all covered in various sources. This would not be overstepping the Cuisine in Vancouver article (which does not exist yet), but would provide sufficient context to allow readers to not have to split their window and cross-reference to figure out that the Michelin list only includes in-city restaurants and has a relatively high concentration of Japanese restaurants relative to the rest of the food secene. The frequency of the nominations and sameness of these lists is very much verging on gaming the system, and I frankly am seeing myself stepping back from FL reviewing if this becomes even more of a trend. SounderBruce 05:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with a lot of your points regarding the lack of background information. I’m thinking some of your concerns regarding gaming the system may be better geared for WT:WIKICUP as it seems to be influencing things here. It’s up to how or if you want to approach that. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 19:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to get some clarity on lists relating to media and how much can be implicitly covered by the media itself (a la WP:PLOTCITE). Some examples:

• List of Family Guy cast members is mostly unsourced.
• Compare List of Alien (franchise) characters where the details of the characters are well-sourced but there's an unsourced summary table.
• Submissions for Best International Feature Film like List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film have no sources in their lists. There are no sources for the submitting country, the language, the director, or the result, but there are also no sources even confirming that these are the correct films.
• Compare Academy Award for Best Actor where each year is cited in the table, but other sections that summarize this info are not.
• List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for non-English performances is mostly unsourced in prose and list.
• Compare List of Academy Awards for Walt Disney where it's sourced throughout.
• The viewer counts are sourced when they appear at List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, but the titles, directors, writers, storyboarders, release dates, and numbering are unsourced.
• Compare List of Kaze no Stigma episodes where the release dates are sourced, but the director and writer are not.
• Compare List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) where the release dates are sourced, but only for the first five seasons.
• List of Nintendo 64 games has references for the title and publishers but not the developers or release dates.
• Compare List of Sega CD games where each column has citations.

Filmographies and other -ographies seem to be consistently sourced based on the random sample I checked. A lot of these other lists are inconsistent in what needs sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think your point, while understandable, is sort of bogged down by the fact that some of your examples just aren’t FL quality and probably wouldn’t survive a FLRC. “List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for non-English performances” is from 2008 and “List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film” which itself has somewhat dubious notability. As for your point, for episode lists plotcite usually covers writers and directors as they are credited in the episode hence why they don’t need to be sourced. Episodes do not list the viewership info so they have to be sourced. Airdates and production codes are somewhat murky though the former is usually confirmed alongside the viewing numbers and the latter sometimes appears in episode credits but otherwise requires a source. Olliefant (she/her) 21:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, a lot of those lists are pretty rough FLs. (The Academy Awards in particular has a bunch of trivia lists, both FL and not, that are pretty awful, and List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for non-English performances seems to be one of those. Though when I suggested deleting one such trivia list, there was pushback.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Addition: List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film is sourced; it just uses a general reference at the end. Whether that level of sourcing would fly at FLC today is debatable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::If anything, this is another reason to clarify the requirements so we can decide which ones belong should go through FLRC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Can dynamic lists become featured lists or is that not possible? If yes then do they have to meet any special criteria for dynamic lists? Easternsahara (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:I see you just added the dynamic list template to List of museums in Venezuela. I would say yes, this contains useful information and could become featured, but you would have to define the criteria well to assess completeness of notable or potentially article-worthy items. Reywas92^Talk 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::They can, there are plenty of dynamic lists that are FLs. As long as the inclusion criteria is clear and the list relatively stable it's not a problem in and of itself. --PresN 12:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:As PresN mentioned, it depends, pretty much entirely, on the inclusion criteria and how dynamic the list is. If it's changing once or twice a year, that's easy to keep up with. If it's changing weekly, and by more than one item, that becomes much more difficult to maintain. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, {{@FLC}} should List of North Korean propaganda slogans be closed as a fail? It has been four months and has 3 supports out of 10. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:It has three supports and one oppose. Normally three supports is around the area where we would consider promotion, but the oppose is over comprehensiveness; I know nothing about the subject matter, but it appears to have at least some weight, although it's hard to tell since nobody other than the nominator has given an opinion on how big an issue it is (unless I missed something). I suppose you could say this is in no consensus territory, but it's probably worth giving it another week or so. This is just one of those FLCs that looks like it might be a tougher call to make than usual. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:@FLC director and delegates: I am genuinely not trying to be a pest, but my World Figure Skating Championships has hit the two-month mark and has received at least three supports, plus the source review, so I am just wondering if it should be promoted soon. The usual turnaround seems to have been about a month. I am continuing to work on articles, and sent some of the lesser competitions to GA, but they were bounced back and I was told to send them to FL instead. I have also done several source reviews to try an ease the backlog. I do genuinely appreciate everyone's assistance at the FL project, but it can just be a little frustrating sometimes. Thank you so much. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, I wasn't able to do a promotion pass this week and it looks like it just missed the cutoff on May 5. I'll be able to review it in the next day or so; please be patient. --PresN 15:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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. {{u|RunningTiger123}} kept it to 2 simultaneous nominations, and {{u|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)