Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#MOS Taskforce begins

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)

: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 {{u|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 {{tq|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 {{u|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)

With regard to the more rigid restrictions on list length introduced recently, can I check if List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1996 would be considered to be a list of 5 items (because only five different songs got to number one) or 52 items (because it covers 52 weeks' charts)? If the former, I'll curtail my current series of AC number one nominations before I get to 1996 to avoid wasting everyone's time (due to the increasingly stale nature of AC radio from the mid-90s onwards, there are other subsequent lists which have fewer than eight different songs)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it still counts as 52, especially given the context of all the other AC number ones lists. --PresN 13:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|PresN}} - thanks :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:How did I know, without even looking, that it was going to be Celine Dion? 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)