Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposal) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Uhhh how do you ask if you want a review to be ended?? I dont think I can find appropriate/better sources for parts of the article, i.e. the mixtapes and some songs which I only found dates for with youtube (excluding music videos, which can't be helped). I dont know how to ask and I dont want people to pass something simply because its gone on for way too long // Chchcheckit (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

(i am the nominator) // Chchcheckit (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we've been having a problem at FLC, which has been ongoing for the past few months. The problem is that a lot of nominations get posted, get a support or two within a couple weeks, and then sit there for as much as 2 months. That's a really frustrating situation for the nominators, both first-timers and long-timers.

Ultimately, the problem comes down to one of numbers: while there's no official minimum number of supports needed to promote a list, in practice I don't like promoting one with less than three supporting prose/content reviews. We have a few people who have been doing a great job with source reviews, and I always appreciate the accessibility reviews, but the fact of the matter is that if a list has been open for a month with 3 supports and no source/accessibility review, I'll just do them myself and promote - not ideal, but okay. But if it has 2 supports and source/accessibility reviews done, I'm not going to promote it, so it's just going to sit there. I'm begrudgingly willing to do a prose review myself and also promote if the list is very solid, but I really don't like doing it and won't do that unless it's been open for 8 weeks because the delegates really shouldn't be the main arbiter of what a featured list is - the reviewers should be.

So what that all means is that for every nomination posted, three reviews of the prose/content have to be done. If they aren't, then we get where we are today: a dozen lists just hanging out for a month+ with no activity, while only a few lists are promoted each week and several nominators have a backlog of un-nominated lists. And since we don't have a large pool of people doing reviews without nominating, that means that the nominators have to do reviews, or else convince other editors from elsewhere to come and do reviews (ask on discord, ask on wikiprojects, wherever). And right now, just looking at the numbers, they aren't.

I'm not going to name names, to start with because I don't keep track of who reviews like FAC does, but also because if you're not reviewing, you know it, you don't need me to name you. But I would really, really encourage everyone to do their best to do at least 3 reviews for every nomination, or even just 1 more review per nomination than you're doing. Since I don't know who watches this page, tagging every active nominator (just going top to bottom of the page): @Bgsu98, Mb2437, Unilandofma, TheNuggeteer, FrizzB, Mmberney, SounderBruce, Darth Stabro, Generalissima, Tone, Olliefant, SafariScribe, Preferwiki, The Kip, Kline, MPGuy2824, ChrisTheDude, Cavan121012, Cat's Tuxedo, Michael Aurel, XR228, Vestrian24Bio, Shwabb1, and Newbzy:. --PresN 02:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't like promoting one with less than three supporting prose/content reviews. I, for one, did not know this. Once a list has 2 prose reviews, I have assumed that is enough. I'll change my internal threshold to 3 from now on. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I try my best to review almost every nomination (looks like there's a few open ones I haven't reviewed, must remedy that). Is there any way we can run some sort of programme to encourage more people to review, even if they aren't active nominators.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2025 seems to have had three supports and a completed source review for six weeks but hasn't been promoted.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't see the third one. --PresN 13:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I have never been involved in the nomination/review process before and my current nomination is my first nomination, but I’d be happy to try and help out with reviews. I’m not the most active editor but I’d be willing to try and help out a bit when I can, even if my knowledge on the process might be a bit less than other experienced editors Cavan121012 (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright but I will also second @MPGuy2824's view; 2 reviews on content/prose and then sources are okay. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me the phenomenon may be more general than FLC - I think at FAC we are also pretty short on reviewers. I was wondering if it's a Christmas/end of year sort of deal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The holiday period must've affected reviewing in some way (it certainly did for me), but I have a feeling like this issue extends deeper than seasonal availability. Something should be done (possibly along the QPQ route of DYK if suggestion isn't enough?), but I'd argue against lowering the review threshold as suggested above. FLCs are supposed to be "our very best work", and I think two reviews on prose are not enough to secure that standard. The fact that we're facing a jam-up of nominations is not a reason to lower quality assurance. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we always have a dip in the holiday season - see WP:FLS, every December/January - but this has been ongoing for several months now. I never used to step in as the "third review" at all, but lately I've been doing it a lot on lists that don't really have any issues but just haven't gotten a third person to look at them after 8 or 10 weeks. I firmly disagree with lowering the number of reviews needed- FL is intended to be comparable to FA, not GA, and our prose reviews are easier to do than both of those simply due to there usually being less of it. I also don't want FLC to be "what does PresN think should be an FL" - the delegates should interpret consensus, not create it. I'm hoping that this reminder poke at people to do reviews will be enough; I'd prefer not to follow FAC and track who's reviewing (see their monthly posts that show who has done how many reviews, so you can see exactly who has been nominating and not reviewing), but I'm considering posting form messages on nominations that have been sitting without any action for weeks to push the nominator to do reviews, QPQ or not. --PresN 15:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Your post does seem to have prompted an increase in activity this week, so it is appreciated. I hope the increase stays steady for a while. It has been sluggish here for months, but it has been even more sluggish at FAC. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Pres. Hopefully this works for the forseeable future. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think one simple option would be to add a comment similar to WP:GANI#N2 item 5 to the FLC instructions and/or to Template:Featured list candidates/editintro. Especially for newer reviewers, it might be good to provide explicit encouragement to join the process. This won't be some magic bullet to fix everything, but I don't think it would hurt, either. My suggested wording would be something like: After creating a nomination, consider reviewing other open nominations – anyone is encouraged to review regardless of FLC experience. This does not imply quid pro quo. Helping to review lists helps the Wikipedia community by cutting down the backlog as a way to help pay it forward. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Love it, done. --PresN 18:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and added similar wording to {{FLC-instructions}} – if other people don't want to modify the nomination procedure like that, it can easily be undone. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Howdy partners. I'd like to ask if, given the state of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1, I would be okay submitting another nomination. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 19:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Yeah, that's fine. --PresN 20:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated, will probably nominate after I review a couple other nominations. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 22:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, fellow FLC participants. I'm once again entering my busy season in real life and will not be as available as usual for closures over the next couple of months. With our two other highly skilled closers, things at FLC should still run pretty smoothly even if I can't manage many closures in the near-future. As for the TFL blurbs, I've been able to find enough time to handle my regular duties in the past and expect this year to be no different, though I will certainly let you know if things change this time around. See you all on the other side (if mid-April can ever be called the other side :-)) Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

See you when the taxin' is done! --PresN 01:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)