- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [4].
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sub-list of Victoria Cross recipients has gone through a recent peer review, which has hopefully readied it for FL candidature. User:AustralianRupert did much of the work on this article, including the difficult referencing and table work, and much of my contributions have been in the way of tweaking, slight expansions and alt text. AustralianRupert is on board with this nomination, per his statement at the peer review. I believe that this article meets the featured list criteria and look forward to everyone's comments. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Just quickly passing through:
- Check the "disambig links" in the toolbox
- Did you consider having the "place of action" column sort in such a way that you end up having places in one country together. You might want to use hidden keys to achieve this. At the moment the column sorts strictly by alphabet, so "Ningthoukhong, Burma" is disconnected from "Pin Hmi Road Bridge, Burma". Also you should remove the full stops in that column.
- Hidden keys added, full stops removed.
- What does "Indian Armoured Corps attached 6th Gurkha Rifles" etc mean? Who was attached to whom?
- Should all have been "attached to"; corrected. I hope this makes it more clear.
- Not sure I understand since I am not familiar with military topics. Could you explain it shortly? I am a bit confused by the "Bengal Staff Corps" which is attached to both, the 1st and the 2nd King George V's Own Gurkha Rifles. If it makes sense you also might want to add sort keys to the "unit" column such that all "Gurkha Rifles", etc. are together when sorting.
- Basically, in the beginning of the Gurkha divisions, native divisions weren't considered able to provide their own officers, and so special corps were created to provide British officers for native divisions, and these special corps were "attached to" the native divisions. One special corps could provide offciers for several native ones? Does this explain it better? I have added sort keys to the unit columns so that all of the 1st Gurkhas display together, all of the 2nd, etc. Is this what you wanted?
- Thanks for the explanation. If it is not obvious, maybe you could add something like it to the lead section. I'd suggest not to add sortkeys "01", "02",... but "Royal Gurkha Rifles", "Gurkha Rifles",... or possibly with a suffix: "Royal Gurkha Rifles 05", "Gurkha Rifles 05", "Gurkha Rifles 06",... But you can probably decide better what the most natural sorting would be.bamse (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can find to add to the lead section on this. And now I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're looking for with the sort key. How about this...why don't you give me a general example of what you want the table to look like after sorting, so I know the wished-for end result, and then I'll see what I can do to get it to look that way? :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest to have after sorting: a block of "Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is sorted by number, 1st, 2nd,...), then a block of "... Own Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is ordered by the name of the king/prince queen), followed by a block of "Royal Gurkha Rifles" (which in itself is sorted like the Gurkha Rifles block above by nmuber). If it was a sport event, your sorting looks like: "1st (=gold) jumping, 1st running, 1st swimming,...,2nd (=silver) jumping, 2nd running, 2nd swimming, ... , 3rd (=bronze) jumping, 3rd running, 3rd swimming,..." My suggestion is to sort like: 1st jumping, 2nd jumping, 3rd jumping,..., 1st running, 2nd running, 3rd running,..., 1st swimming, 2nd swimming, 3rd swimming,...". As I wrote above, I am not sure which of the two ways of sorting is more natural, so I leave it up to you to decide. bamse (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with this is that what is between the number (i.e. 1st) and the "Gurkha rifles" is basically incidental, as is the name of the staff corps being attached to it. These are just names picked up from royal sponsors at various points. So, I believe the current sorting structure is the most natural, as it lists all of the 1st Gurkha rifles together, all of the 2nd, etc. Hope this makes sense. I've added a note explaining (I hope) the staff corps thing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses interspersed above; thank you for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick reply. bamse (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for taking a bit longer to reply this time. I hope I have provided a satisfactory answer to your question above... Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost, replied with two suggestions which you may or may not implement. bamse (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Avoid bold links (you have Victoria Cross bold and linked). Just unbold it here.
- "first award came in" - first award was made in...?
- Don't overlink British Army.
- Removed one extra link, please let me know if there are others that I didn't find.
- Perhaps a note needed to help reader understand how you're ordering unit (by Gurkha unit I presume, so not obviously numerically or alphabetically..)
- Added a note. Please let me know if it needs more information.
- Indo-Malay "Confrontation" or "confrontation" - be consistent.
- I like the place of action sorting. Very good idea considering the red links as well.
- Don't mix accessdate/publish date formats in the references.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies interspersed above - thanks for the comments. Dana boomer (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
I'm sorry not to have posted these observations during the peer review, but I think it's only where I've not looked at the article in a while that has allowed me to spot these things! Anyway, here goes:
- It might be a browser thing, but the name column seems to be pretty narrow in the main list (about the same width as the year column). Is there any way the name of the recipient (which I would consider to be the most important facet) can be a little more prominent?
- The table is an automated table, and so the widths are created automatically. However, I'm not that knowledgable about tables, and so there may be some way to change the width settings that I don't know about. If there is, I would be happy to make the names section wider. Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the main prose, it occurs to me that all the info is there, but re-reading it I wonder about the order some of it is displayed in. For instance, the first para talks about the VC, then jumps into the subject of the Gurkha regiment by indicating the number of times they have recieved it. As I read it I thought to myself it might read better if it first said how many times the VC has been awarded, before tackling the Gurkha regiment in the following para. Likewise, the first para menntions the first awards to British officers and then native Gurkhas, but then in the 3rd para the major reason for the difference in awards chronology is mentioned. There's nothing especially wrong with it, it's just a bit dislocated. It's kind of tricky to explain it, and it's actually quicker for me to just demo what I'm thinking of, so I've done it below. This is just a rough idea of what I'm thinking - I'm not attempting to rewrite anything Dana boomer or Australian Rupert have done, just re-order it slightly. I have changed a few tenses and sentence structures to make it all fit, and inevitably some refs may be in the wrong place! Anyway:
The Victoria Cross (VC) is a military decoration that may be bestowed upon members of the British or Commonwealth armed forces for acts of valour or gallantry performed in the face of the enemy. Within the British honours system and those of many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award a soldier can receive for actions in combat.[1] It was established in 1856 and since then has been awarded xxxx times.
The British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers, has been a part of the Army since 1815. When raised it originally focused on conflicts in the Far East, but the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese hands necessitated that the brigade move its base to the UK. A battalion is still maintained in Brunei and as of 2009, units serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans.[2]
Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times.[3] The first award was made in 1858 to a British officer of the Gurkhas during the campaigns that followed the Indian Rebellion of 1857, while the first award to a native Gurkha was in 1915 during the First World War. When the Victoria Cross was initially established, Gurkhas, along with all other native troops of the British East India Company Army or the British Indian Army, were not eligible for it and as such up until 1911 all of the Gurkha recipients of the award were British officers who were attached to Gurkha regiments.[4] Until that time the highest award that Gurkhas were eligible for was the Indian Order of Merit. Since 1911 however, of the 16 VCs awarded to men serving with Gurkha regiments, 13 have been bestowed upon native Gurkhas.[3] The most recent award was made in 1965, during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.[3]
In 1950, when India became a republic, Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army lost their eligibility for the Victoria Cross and they are now covered under the separate Indian honours system. Under this system the Param Vir Chakra (PVC), which is India's highest military decoration for valour,[5] is considered to be equivalent to the Victoria Cross. As such only those serving in the Gurkha units of the British Army remain eligible for the Victoria Cross.
Just an idea. Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added your proposed rewording to the lead, as I agree that the structure is more readable. Thanks for the help! I filled in the number of times it had been reworded and referenced that, as well as making a slight addition of the information that the Gurkha regiments are some of the most heavily decorated - a little fact that I found while digging for a medal total reference. Please let me know if you have any more comments - thanks for your review! Dana boomer (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an interesting fact - definitely worthy of inclusion. Hope you don't mind my quick c/e - I think the Navy and Air Force may take issue with Historynet's use of the term 'soldier'! Obviously I think the page could still be improved with a wider space for the recipients names, but I for one can't even begin to see how you would do it. Still, in the hope it happens I'm more than happy to lend my Support. Nice work by you and AustralianRupert. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It follows the normal formula, even builds on it in some places. I have forced the column width for the name to try and make it look a bit better. I have also moved the image up to avoid the whitespace issue though the contents box looks out of place now. Perhaps hide it? Either way, it it meets the FL criteria in my opinion. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I meant hide the TOC, or you could remove the gurkha image, or remove the VC image, move things around, but as it stands there isn't enough writing to fit all 3 things in comfortably, at least on my screen. Woody (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Looks much better without the table, which only really listed the refs and such anyway! I've narrowed the space between the text and the next title though, it looked a bit wide on my computer, but if it needs undoing I don't mind. Nice job on the column widths Woody! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments – nice list, well cited and illustrated, but a few things before I can support:
- "many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award" - the use of "considered" bugs me, as the award is the highest decoration for valour in these nations, and is not just viewed as such for any random reason.
- The cite of For Valour: Britain's Victoria Cross Winners [5] is out dated and incorrect. The cited figure states 1,351 VCs have been awarded, when 1,353 is the current correct figure. The article was made in 1999, and two VCs have been awarded since then (Johnson Beharry [2004] and Bryan Budd [2006]). I have several books on the VC, but they are either Australian-centric or slightly outdated and do not include Budd, so I don't think I can help you in a book cite, but there should be several reliable sources on the internet that have the correct figure.
- "British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers" - the phrase "composed of Nepalese soldiers" implies that the unit(s) were completely make up of Nepalese soldiers, but weren't the brigade's officers predominantly British soldiers?
- In the section where it is discussing the first and last awards of the VC to members of the brigade, I think it would be best if the actual person was mentioned as just the basic discription leaves it a little vague and one then has to look through the table in an attempt to spot the person.
- The final sentence in the lead is uncited.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. I believe I have corrected all of the above. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [13].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.—Chris!c/t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of historic reasons, there are ten lines, that are the physical infrastructure, and six services, that are the operating numbers. The latter has changed several times in the course of history, while the former has been constant. A (physical) line may have one or more service numbers, while each service operates two lines, plus the Common Tunnel. I have made a slight rewording in the first paragraph that might make this clearer, but perhaps more is needed. Perhaps a new map (as I discuss below) could make it clearer. Although the system is logical as such, it breaches with the way metros are normally lined (with the service and physical infrastructure bearing the same name), so the Oslo-method seems to be confusing to people. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so the service and the physical lines are separated. This is a bit odd, but ok I understand now.—Chris!c/t 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good, but some questions:
Support, all questions have been addressed. bamse (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to History of Oslo Metro lines?
- There is the article History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro that has much more detailed information about the history (which is better described in text, and also covers other areas, such as operation, rolling stock, politics etc). This list is an attempt to make a easy overview of the numerical values of each line, which is not discussed at any length (and at least not systematically) in the history article. It just donned on me as I am writing this that I could have added the number of stations to each line, at the time of each expansion. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I guess my initial confusion resulted from mixing "lines" with "service".bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you still add the number of stations to each line at the time of each expansion? bamse (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Common Tunnel a "line"? If yes, the sentence: "They are chronologically sorted by the date of the first section of line to open.", appears to be not true.
- The Common Tunnel is both a line and a tunnel. I cannot see how the statement is untrue, since the first part of the Common Tunnel opened in 1928, after the Kolsås Line (1924) and before the Sognsvann Line (1934). Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Don't know what I was looking at then, but it appeared not to be ordered by date. Must have been late... bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following sentence might be confusing: "If only one or two stations on the line are served by an additional service, it is omitted." I can see the reason for omission, but maybe there is a better way to phrase it, or add a footnote for explanation.
- Changed to "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of adding a reason for the omittance. If it is not confusing to anybody else it is fine with me though. bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also in the "List" section, you probably mean "column" instead of "row" and "last" -> "4th".
- Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you use stars and blue background to mark light rail services? Is the whole network already officially called Metro even though some of the lines still are light rails?
- It is common to mark such things with both on lists (or so it is on other FLs). The blue is used to color-code to make it easy to see, and the astrix is to help monochrome browsers or colorblind readers to also understand the information, or so I presuem
- I see. OK. bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Light rail vs. metro is a matter of discussion in sources. Prior to 1993, the metro and the light rail were independent systems, and prior to 1987 there was not even a transfer station. After 1995, all the trains serving the light rail operate through the Common Tunnel and onwards to places on the metro system. All the light rail lines have been closed for upgrade, and when they are reopened, will have metro standard. This mixing of metro and light rail is therefore now an issue of the past. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand the lead section correctly, it will be an issue of the past in 2014, when the last light-rail has been converted. It seems to be a matter of definition, so it is fine with me. bamse (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kolsås and Holmenkoll Lines will be upgraded to metro standard (just like four other lines previously), so this will not be an issue. I think is says so fairly clearly in the lead, but perhaps I am wrong. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot find the Common Tunnel in the map. Is it the dotted line close to Carl Berners plass? Since it seems important, could it be labeled in the map. It would also be good to have the various lines in different colors in the map.
- That would require me to make a new map from scratch in .svg, which might take some time. Let me look into the issue. The map in question is the best on the Commons right now, is geographically accurate, has the name of all the branches (but as you comment, not the Common Tunnel), and includes both mainline railway and the tramway. Unfortunately, it is in .jpg, so it is virtually impossible to edit, and is from 2005, while the Ring Line had yet to be completed (the dotted line). Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have the original (background) map without the lines? I guess simple edits like completing the ring line and marking the tunnel can be done even on jpg. Also service "6" is missing and "4" runs on a different route if this map is correct. The present map should be marked as "historic" in the article and the image description. bamse (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have anything except the map you see on this article, plus a future map and this. There is also this, but it lacks line names. Let me fiddle in Inkscape and see what I can produce. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the list contains the extension of the lines, maybe you could even have several maps: the present map (marked as "2005 map" in the caption) and the new map which shows the present status.bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added another map, that is up to day what concerns service numbers and lines, is geographically accurate and in vector format. It includes important stations and line names, but lacks the mainline train and tram lines, plus water/settlement information. To show how the metro lays in the cityscape, I have kept the old map, and made a not that it is pre-2006. Arsenikk (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. If this map is correct, service "5" ends in Storo and services "4" and "6" circle around the ring line before returning to Bergkrystallen and Kolsaas respectively. In your map it seems as if "4,5,6" all end in Nydalen. Which is correct? Maybe it is worthwhile (not essential) to indicate somwhow in the map that all lines use the common line. Also you could mark the tunnel as dotted line or something. bamse (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To start with the last remark, the way the map is constructed I would have to start from scratch to give the tunnels a dotted line. I have simply converted a bitmap of the line i found on the Commons to an object, which does not allow me to manipulate the lines as I wish. I am trying to figure out how to extract the paths from OpenStreetMap so I can edit it properly, and can produce a much more sophisticated map, but I am only a novice at vector graphics, so it may be beyond the time frame of this FLC to produce such a map. As for the 4/5/6-issue, I see your point, and can move the numbers to below where it says "Ring Line". Hopefully that will be a little more accurate, and I can add a comment in the caption. Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "4" and "6" under the ring line are better, but "5" ends in Storo (does not circle the ring line) as far as I understand from the map I linked to above. I was under the impression that you had lines in the svg. If they are non-line objects, I agree that it is not easy to make the line dotted. Actually it would have been sufficient to make a schematic map (with straight lines) for 2009, as you already have the 2006 map showing the lines in their environment. If you feel energetic, you could make such a schematic map, or ask at the graphic lab for help. If not, I'd be happy with the present map after the "5" has been fixed. bamse (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The numbers are located about where Storo is, and line 5 terminates there, while services 4 and 6 change their destinations signs between Storo and Nydalen. I don't quite know what to do to clarify it further, although I can, as you say, get it more accurate when I start again with a schematic or map. and include all stations. Arsenikk (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is ok. bamse (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, it is still not possible to have tables with "rowspan" sortable on wikipedia, is it?
- Yes and no. You can disable sorting in certain rows entirely, but it would disrupt the ordering of other rows. So, if not necessary, rowspan should be avoided.—Chris!c/t 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bamse (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback. I have followed your advice or made a comment about each item. Arsenikk (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I replied above. One strange thing surprised me. Was service number 6 really started after 3 (and before 4, 5)? bamse (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current service numbers date from 2003, when the Ring Line opened. Prior to that, they were mixed with the street tram system, and were inconsistently numbered from 1 to 16. Arsenikk (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, quite confusing the Oslo metro. BTW, if possible, can you specify the starting point ("from") of the metro conversion of the Kolsås Line in the table entry: "Metro standard to Åsjordet"? Also if the metro standard for the Røa Line is from Lijordet to Østerås it should say so: "Metro standard Lijordet – Østerås". When do you put the words "Metro standard" in the section column? It seems a bit arbitrary to me. bamse (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out; I've specified all the metro standard sections. I've also added half a sentence to the key section to try to clarify that all white fields involve metro standard. To answer your last question: the list contains the time of the conversion to metro standard, so lines that have never been converted to metro don't have such a listing (either because they haven't opened yet or because they were built as such). Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got it now. "Metro Standard" spelled out in the table means that the whole line was converted. Correct? bamse (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.
- The caption to the network map talks about the T-bane but you haven't mentioned anywhere else that this is the local name of the metro.
- "The Østensjø and Lambertseter Lines were converted with the opening in 1966." Not sure what opening this is referring to.
- I think that Bamse has already touched upon this but I think that the merged cells to the right of some of the 'Metro Standard' cells are not what is intended.
Boissière (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the copyedit and feedback. I've fixed up the text per point one and two. Regarding the last, I cannot see anything wrong with the numbers, since no metro standard upgrade has changed the length of any line, although they sometimes have reduced the number of stations. I can of course merge the cells to the right, but in my opinion this visualizes that the length, and if applicable, the number of stations, has not changed. But I do see that this style "breaks" the blue rows, so perhaps what you suggest is not so bad. The numerical values are all correct. Arsenikk (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection I think that there are two discrepencies. For the Common Tunnel it shows the length of the Stortinget-Nationaltheatret section and the metro conversion of the whole Stortinget-Majorstuen section to both be 4.8km. That can't be correct. In fact in comparing the lengths in the table with the diagram in the Common Tunnel article it looks as though the table has the length of this section incorrectly stated as 2.1km. The article has it as 0.5km. The Songsvann line also shows two different sections to have the same length of 6.0km. The two other parts where you use a merged distance cell are fine as the left hand cells are for the same sections of line. Boissière (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the distance column shows the total length of the line with the upgrade. For instance, for each new section, the length value increases. Regarding the calculation of the common tunnel, this may be so complicated it need a footnote or a remark in the key or something. What has happened, is that the tunnel has been built from both ends. The station distances are (in km) Majorstuen–Nationaltheatret: 2.0, Nationaltheatret–Stortinget: 0.7 km, Stortinget–Jernbanetorget: 0.5, and Jernbanetorget–Tøyen: 1.6. That sums up to 4.8. For the three first entries, the two then-separate tunnels have km-counter independently. Arsenikk (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I had totally missed the statement that said that the lengths were the total lengths after the opening of each section though I put it to you that this is an unusual way of presenting information about sections of line. I am not totally against things being presented this way but I wonder if other people may also be confused. Boissière (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This idea not struck me as an issue when I though out the article. Perhaps two columns would be suitable, one for the extension length and one for the total length? Arsenikk (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list now has an additional column with the length of each extension. Arsenikk (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.
- The lead states that there are 90 stations. In the list, I added up the number of stations on each line as of the most recent upgrade. So I added the 20 for Holmenkoll, the 10 for Røa, and so on for all ten lines, reaching a total of 92. Does this mean that only two stations are on more than one line? Or have I done something silly? If there indeed are only two stations served by multiple lines, maybe it would be worth naming them?
- On a related note, am I right in believing that the bottom column of each line is the one that gives the information about the current situation of the line?
- Ref 8 should be marked as (in Norwegian).
- References 9 and 27 are exactly the same.
- Inline citation needed for "highest ridership" claim in the last paragraph of the lead.
- "The last two lines are in the process of upgrade, with the Holmenkoll and Kolsås Lines planned to open in 2011 and 2014, respectively." Are the lines closed until 2011 and 2014 respectively, or are they open but using light rail?
- "Services are omitted from lines where they serve only one or two stations." This is a strange question to ask, but am I right to take this sentence literally (i.e. that any service that serves three or more stations is included?). If so that's fine and no amendment is needed, I just want to be sure that the statement is accurate.
Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the feedback. I have made some adjustments to the text to adress the language, duplicated ref, inline citation issue (it was cited, but I added another that is probably a lot more accurate). As for your questions, the reason that there are 92 stations is that the Lamberseter Line was incorrectly stated (it said 9 instead of 8); the more problematic station is Majorstuen, that was built as the terminus of the Holmenkoll Line in 1898, and still was that at the last time of the line extension. Since then, the station became the western-most line of the Common Tunnel (and thereby not any more on the Holmenkoll Line). When the table is updated after the upgrades, the station will as such not be listed. Your assumption in the second point (about the bottom line) is correct. However, the Holmenkoll Line and parts of the Kolsås Line exist, but are closed. Regarding your last question, the reason for this is that for instance service six runs from the Common Tunnel, then serves two stations on the Røa Line before running along the Kolsås Line. Similarly, service 4 and 6 serve one station on the Grorud Line before branching off to the Ring Line. This is just an arbitrary choice to avoid giving the impression that services 6 serves the Grorud Line and the Røa Line, etc. Arsenikk (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Okay, plenty of images, but this is about the lines, so perhaps give prominence to the second image of where the lines geographically run. I think perhaps one or two fewer images from the lead would benefit the structure of the list.
- Lambetseter Line is overlinked in the lead.
- "trains could for the first time run" - "trains could, for the first time, run..."
- "light rail to metro standard" what does this mean to a non-expert?
- Ah, you explain it three or four sentences later. I'd put it sooner.
- I would not use white background for "metro standard" (not good for accessibility). I would say, unless specified otherwise, all lines are "metro standard".
- Shouldn't ref 23 have an en-dash in the title rather than a spaced hyphen?
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the feedback. The choice of a hyphen in ref 23 was because the sourced used that, but I've changed it. I removed the one image (that provides the most information, but has a slightly out-of-date numbering). The four remaining images each present a important aspect of the lines: underground, overground, a large station, a small station and a line while it was still a light rail. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [18].
- Nominator(s): Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement. Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Citations should be formatted properly. Some miss publishers and accessed dates.
- Legends should be at the top, not the bottom
- Is "If All is selected, expect the page to load very slowly, or even crash." necessary?
—Chris!c/t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is a sortable list with all the aces, with the same level of detail, why do the sublists exist? Either the "all" list should be deleted/merged as being too long and redundant, or the sublists fail 3b and should not exist. It currently fail this: "...does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article".
- Can the KIA/MIA/DOW asterix be changed to a dagger or other symbol, to avoid any chance of confusion with the awards asterix. I would make them clickable too, as the list is so long and there is so much footnote info (scrolling continuously back and forth is annoying for readers).YobMod 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But transcluding cannot be used to simply bypass the 3b criterion, otherwise all lists that should not be seperate articles could become FL. Transcluding the lists still means it largely recreate material from another article. As long as the "all" list exists, this list is redundant, and according to the criteria cannot become a FL. I could cut up a FL discography into "albums", "singles" and "eps", and tranclude them all into the parent, but that likewise should be opposed for failing 3b, rather than giving 4 FLs. Another example is our TV series FLs. For the main list and the season specific lists to become featred, they have to do more than just recreate the info and transclude it back to the parent list. If a parent article is desired to link all the lists together or for a topic, it should be written as an article using summary style - i'm certain a GA could be written on this topic.YobMod 13:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand. But I wonder, would it be better to delete the all list, or replace it with some sort of summary text? I'm thinking along the lines of List of Medal of Honor recipients/List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 16:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think summary text. Even if only a stub with links or short paragraphs for each sub-list, it gives a starting point for expansion and links all the similar articles for interested readers.YobMod 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the "All" page, since without the actual lists it would just be a rehash of the base page List of World War I flying aces. Any attempts at summaries of each list can be made there. I've changed the killed * to a dagger. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as my concerns were met.YobMod 13:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- question would it be possible to separate the notes from the citations? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article page of Fulco Ruffo di Calabria indicates that he received 1 gold, 2 silver and 4 bronze Medals of Military Valor. The legend explains that an * denotes a second presentation (a bar is added) of the same award. In the table Fulco Ruffo di Calabria is listed with MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze) which would mean that he received 1 gold, 3 silver and 5 bronze. I think something is wrong here or not? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All three are only linked to in the Legend. I use the same code for each use, regardless of use. For example for the first one, Medal of Military Valor, which is a disambig linking to the three levels of a specific award, I use the same code MMV for all three (e.g. "MMV(Gold), MMV**(Silver), MMV****(Bronze)" ). For the second, Military Merit Cross, and the third, Order of the Star, I again use the same codes, MMC and OS throughout the pages. I think the disambig links work in these cases, but if you disagree, I can try to fix it. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote Medal of Military Valor so it is no longer a disambig page. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 14:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the link to Military Merit Cross, dividing the awards by Country. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 15:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the hopelessly small text for the key? I had trouble reading it, and I have perfect vision. Try using this code in the first line of the table instead of all the superscript tags: style="font-size: 90%" (make the number smaller if need be).
- Isn't MOH is the more common abbreviation for the US Medal of Honor? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11...
- Not sure why the Nieuport is lead image when this is about aces, and you have an ace image underneath it?
- In searching for images for the article, I could find none that both represented the pilots and the act of a WWI dogfight. I chose two images to represent the different aspects, perhaps in this case no images is better than a confusing one.
- I think a link to World War I seems reasonable somewhere in the lead.
- Particularly in preference to linking France... but that's cool.
- I think, if diacritics are available, they should be used. Pégoud deserves his accent!
- Fixed that instance. all the rest should be correct.
- "At the beginning of World War I air combat had not been invented, aircraft were for reconnaissance only" - I would replace the comma with "so" or "and".
- "different air services had different methods of assigning credit for aerial victories, and the actual number of air victories required to officially qualify as an "ace" has varied" - tense change.
- "term 'ace' " or "term "ace""?
- "10 kills" - literally or ten aircraft shot down?
- ten aircraft shot down. A kill (pilots death) is not required, or part of it. Fixed.
- You link German and French, not British or United States or Russian - is there a reason for this?
- "The term "ace" was never used officially by the British." - this is really interesting, but how do I verify it?
I know I read it in one of my sources, but I'll have to find it and inline it right after the statement (I'm surprised i hadn't already). It's now cited.
- Other, similar lists have "flying" in the title, i.e. "... flying aces ..." (e.g. List of World War I flying aces)- is there a reason why this doesn't?
- Improve alt text, you could include the colour of the aircraft for instance.
- It seems that abbreviations are in small text. No need, just makes it less accessible.
- Removed font sizing from tables.
- Find the appropriate link for "bar" in the medal context.
- "exceptionally meritorious service" presumably this is a quote?
- The quotes in the Notes need citations.
- Surprised that not all honours have notes, like "Order of the Bath", you must be able to come up with a succinct description of that?
- The notes for WB have a full stop, the only one in all the notes. Be consistent.
- Fixed, removed full stop.
- Composition prose is five paragraphs, mostly single-sentences paras. Work on improving this, merge them and more importantly, reference them.
- "two seated"- hyphenate.
- "most renowned of which" - prove it.
- Should Austria-Hungary be separated with a hyphen or an en-dash? Be consistent.
- Fixed, removed full stop.
- "Air Service(s)" - why is Service capitalised?
- Because early air forces (in WWI usually called Air Services, were part of the name and capitalized, e.g. United States Army Air Service. If its improper, I can un-cap it.
- Where do you say what RNAS means? Check other abbreviations that are used without explanation.
- Fixed, spelled out only instance.
- Not sure notes, air services, names should be centrally aligned.
- Removed center alignment from table
- Why are some air services in italics, others not?
- I'm not positive, because it's been there since the list was created years ago, but I believe it's because of WP:ITALICS#Foreign terms, "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialised English.". I can undo it if this is wrong.
- "Leading balloon buster of war." this needs explanation as to what a "balloon buster" may be.
- Linked to applicable article.
- "MC*." - full stop not needed.
- Removed full stops from all notes.
- Why do some pilots have up to three citations for their count while most others have nothing specific?
- The citattions are for counts that are disputed. The rest are generally considered correct.
- Ref 7 doesn't need a full stop.
- Ref 9 needs to use en-dashes.
- What makes [19] a reliable source?
Interjectory note:
This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes [20] a reliable source?
Interjectory note:
The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First two books in bibliography have same ISBN number.
- Fixed. Must be a typo in the copy in my library, it had the incorrect one on the inside page, and the correct one on the back cover.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you be consistent when italicising foreign terms, for instance you italicise Pour le Merite in the caption but not in the table?
- bar or Bar? And no need to overlink it.
- for the display of highest valour and skills in the face of an exterior enemy - is this a quote?
- Noticed that the PLM has a reference, why not the others, especially where you claim "highest ... order" or "highest ... award"?
- Is "Red Baron" referenced anywhere?
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix the Pour le Merite ital, and the bar linking and capitalization, working on the Award refs, most of the "highest" stuff was pulled of the individual award pages, but if I can't easily find a ref, I'll reduce the note to "military/civil award of X country" and the like. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Endashes are required in the page ranges used in citations.
- The Croix de guerre is generally abbreviated as "CdeG", but up to you.
- Single, stand-alone sentences should be merged with paragraphs.
- I would stear away from the abbreviation of "WWI" in the prose.
- Citations are inconsistent, with some having full stops, and others not.
- Not all of the citations are formatted correctly.
- I fixed a few minor things, but are there any blaring errors still existing, I can't see any.
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Neutral – while the majority of the issues I raised have been addressed, I do not quite feel I can support this article. The reason for my hesitancy is predominantly based on the concerns raised by Ian Rose, several of which I have considered myself to be an issue when previously reviewing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention in Despatches is present in the key, but not a single ace has this in their note section.
- The key is used across several lists, it is used in at least 1 of them. Should I create a separate key for each?
- No, it would probably be best to keep the lists consistent. However, it is highly likely that a number of these top British/Commonwealth aces were Mentioned in Despatches (for example, prior to 1943, one had to be MID before they could be awarded the DSO), just that it may be a little harder to find out exactly which ones were. It might be an idea to drop the MiD from the lists althgether. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interjected note:
I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."
Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to fix the above. More (mostly reference issues) to come. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 03:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from WFCforLife:
- The alphabetical links don't work, and given that the table is default sorted by victories they seem somewhat unnecessary.
- Why is the "and" italicised for Fonck?
- Coppens and Caldwell should probably be denoted as the leading Belgian and New Zealand(er?) aces for consistency.
- Ref 22 should ideally be expanded upon, either to give alternative figures such as those in refs 20 or 21, or to explain the uncertainty surrounding the figures, similar to ref 25.
- I'm not too familiar with conventions of this sort, but does "The Red Baron" belong in the name column?
Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do the alphabetical links not work? If I sort the names, I get William Melville Alexander first and Kurt Wüsthoff last. The and was probably italicized for emphasis, I'll de-emphasize. Notes added to Belgian and New Zealander aces. Other nicknames arn't mentioned, but "The Red Baron" is so universally know, that I think it merits mention. I'll work on Ref 22. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the box underneath the main table, that links to A B C D and so on. The other links (Legend, Awards, Allies and Central powers) are very useful, just wondering if there was any way of getting rid of the letters. WFCforLife (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see, I didn't notice that. I removed the A-Z links. And I fixed the Ref 22 problems. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having had a quick read of some of the leading aces' articles, I see what you mean about the Red Baron. I can see why ref 22 was originally left as "disputed". Nonetheless, it was a worthwhile expansion, and you've done it very well. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.
- Presentation/style-wise, there's still tidying up to be done:
- Inconsistency in citation formatting, e.g. "pg." (which equates to "p.") and "pp." - I think the most common way of denoting page references is "p." and "pp.", and these should be used here.
- Capitalising citations #7 and #15; even if the titles are all upper case in the references, simply capitalising each word is sufficient for here.
- Since there are a fair few footnotes mixed with the citations, I think you'd be better off separating them into Footnotes and Notes (or Citations), though I won't oppose outright on that point.
- In Bibliography, the title of Kennett's book needs all words capitalised, likewise Toliver in Further Reading.
- Referencing-wise, I have three main issues:
- I can't see where the total for each ace is cited or, alternatively, where a blanket statement is made along the lines of "All figures are based on such-and-such source, unless otherwise noted". For data which is so often disputed, you need to spell out who or what you're relying on for your figures. Further, citations #20 and #21 both say the figure in the table is disputed, but give no source of the original number, nor of the alternative.
- I don't generally push particular sources but I would have liked to see Shores/Franks' Above the Trenches (British/Empire WWI aces), Above the Lines (German aces), and Over the Front (US/French aces) utilised. I know you've employed the Osprey books by the same authors, which is helpful, but the aforementioned titles would certainly add still greater weight to the referencing - plus I see no book in the Bibliography for sources of German and French aces, only British/Empire and US. Also, including the Nieuport book makes things look like they were employed for convenience not comprehensiveness; this was just one of the relevant aeroplanes involved.
- I can't really accept TheAerodrome as a reliable source at Featured level. Despite its sober tone and excellent presentation, it's still not an official source nor does it generally cite where it gets its figures. In any case, with so many printed works to choose from, I can't see the need to reference it anyway. By all means include it as an External Link for convenience, but it shouldn't be relied upon like the book sources.
- Generally this is good work, but I'd like the above comments addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've fixed the reference style issues. I'm
not now working on adding sources for each score. I don't have any of the books you mentioned (although if I can find a copy to buy online, I plan to), so I have to use others. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a copy of Above the Lines, and have been using the other Osprey books I have to source each score. I should soon be able to have a source for each one. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 01:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Trevor. Let me know if you can't find anything you need; though I don't own any of the titles mentioned, I have access to a number of them. Also, aside from the hard copies, I find GoogleBooks and Amazon have a number of Ospreys available for online preview. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Ian Rose's concerns:
The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?
Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.
Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-correction:
All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.
Georgejdorner (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.
George, to take your responses in order:
- As I've said, TheAerodrome is a great site. I use it myself, even relying on it where it clearly cites its sources. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the majority of its pages. I also don't see that expressing concerns about relying on this particular site in an FA candidate article casts doubts on all online sources. There are a number of official online sites and online copies of books that are acceptable as sources for WP articles, I've used them myself. I also don't see that my comments cast doubt on an online encyclopedia like WP, for the very reason we're having this discussion: WP demands inline citations to reliable sources and effectively has a transparent peer reviewing system for its more highly rated articles, i.e. what we're doing right now - I don't see the evidence that TheAerodrome does. I'm also not sure where the evidence is that TheAerodrome is run by the same people we rely on in print; I saw your reply to an earlier query on the reliability of the site but the Links page appears to go to a number of government sites and some private ones but I didn't see key books or authors mentioned - as usual, happy to be pointed in the right direction if I've missed something.
- I don't recall expressing a preference for older books as references, I would always look to recent books or even online sources that are reliable according to WP guidelines. Of course authors learn more as time goes on, hence Above the Trenches having a supplement printed 6 years after the original book. Not using particular books isn't the major stumbling block for me, more not using a decent range of sources. As I said, the Osprey books used are worthwhile and certainly satisfy the reliability criteria, but they only explicitly cover British, Empire and US aces, not French or German.
- This last response leads to your final point, George, about where one sources figures for Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Well, Osprey has titles for the first two, and Australian aces should be covered under the British and Empire book, and I'd be surprised if Belgian aces aren't in a French aces title. Admittedly I can't help with a Russian one at the moment but therein lies the problem with such list articles, one does have a broad amount of data to source and verify. Be that as it may, I still have to treat this as I would any FA candidate when it comes to referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on Ian Rose's concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should almost completely addressed. The style issues have been fixed, and I am in the process of referencing each score, and re-sourcing any currently using TheAerodrome.com. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sourced every score that I could find in my books. There are a few still missing, and they all seem to be observers who became aces while flying with various pilots. I should probably be able to cobble together sources to get a score foe them, but it will take time.- Trevor MacInnis contribs 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, old cobber,
Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.
I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.
When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.
I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.
And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.
Georgejdorner (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:
- The final paragraph of the introduction needs one or more citations.
- We're missing citations for the scores of Gass, Fletcher, Hayward, Cubbon and Edwards.
- There's still some reliance for citations on TheAerodrome that I believe should be removed per my earlier points, specifically:
- 19 - the figure currently listed in TheAerodrome differs slightly from what we have in the article anyway and, given continuing research, the article may always be out of sync with TheAerodrome so much simpler to drop this citation and find one from a book that says "approximately 1,800" or some such; failing that, drop the whole sentence, since we're concerned with a minority of aces here anyway, namely those scoring 20 or more
- 89 - Roderic Dallas' undisputed score of 32 and his possible tally of over 50 doesn't need to be cited from TheAerodrome; both Above the Trenches and Dennis Newton's Australian Aces tabulate the 32 which are beyond question and can be used as sourcing for that figure; Newton is also a source for the "official" score of 39 and the figure of possibly over 50 - I'm happy to provide relevant publication/page details for both Above the Trenches and Australian Aces
- Just formatting, there's some rubbish immediately below the table of aces that needs to go.
Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with alacrity - all issues I raised have been taken care of - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
- Table: Air Service(s) column should be made so that the second word isn't capitalized.
- In the notes column, the quotation mark in "The Red Baron" (first entry) is throwing off the sorting. Not sure if this one can be fixed or not, but it's at least worth an effort.
- The References column looks shrunken, as do the cites themselves. Is the column width setting causing this? It's not the most aesthetically pleasing setup I've ever seen, that's for sure.
- Page ranges in references require en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [27].
- Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Dabomb87[reply]
Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
|
Oppose Why is there no table for Players, Coaches, etc, etc? I understand the are included at those sub-pages, but a list of lists with no table info is rather dull. Maybe at least include the most recent class or something? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly include the most recent class if you want. But I will wait and see what others think first?—Chris!c/t 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The most recent class would be helpful, but according to WP:Summary style, just having a "main" link here is insufficient. A paragraph summarizing the "main" article is also required under each subheading (and I think that the 2009 class should be shown in addition, preferably as a transclusion rather than a copy and paste table). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are both good ideas. Chris, if you can add in the tables, I'll write the summaries. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables are done, I think. For contributors, the most recent induction in 2008, so I just put the 2008 class instead.—Chris!c/t 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it - why are all the refs and teams listed but only a tiny fraction of the other categories? The lead says "The following is a list of people who have been enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame" but gives no explanation as to why, for example, only 3 out of 200-odd players are listed. And why those 3 in particular? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- I also think that having only the latest class looks weird and does not summarize the whole list adequately. I don't see any reason why the latest class should have special treatment and be listed in the main page above the other members, which I think is as important as the latest class. I'm suggesting the following idea: List all the members in the main article without the achievements column, while the sub-pages retains all the details including the achievements. The main page would be long, but it would have a complete list of all the members. If you do that, the teams and referees sections should have their own sub-pages to make them consistent with the other categories. Therefore the main article would fulfill the WP:FL? criteria 3 for comprehensiveness, while the sub-pages can also be retained with little concern of content-forking. Other suggestion is to merge all the list into the main page similar to the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Just ideas to think about. Cheers. — Martin tamb (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is why I do not like placing the latest inductees on the main page, either. But I also dislike the idea of having several unnecessary content forking sublists that largely duplicate the info on the main page. That is why I suggested to follow the FL precedent above: have a brief summary that describes the sublists (see List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford).—Chris!c/t 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on my oppose In answer to the three questions above:
- 1. Yes, if they include information such as a sub-list article like List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base.
- 2a. The same as is at Rawlings Gold Glove Award which includes all information at positional lists such as List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base.
- 2b. I would support the list even if it was long, but as I said to 2a I wouldn't merge so much as have separate lists (easy FT for WP:NBA, by the way). See List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. That's a proper FL of HoF members (recently majorly reworked to save it from FLRC) with 300 references and lots and lots of data.
- Criteria 3a reads "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." It's most certainly practical to include a complete list of items, that's already done in similar lists like the baseball one. And even barring that, this makes absolutely no provision for the biggest ground of all the players. Even if you are set on doing things in the style of the Jesus College list, the Players section has 2 sentences and a redirect. Look at those Jesus College lists again. The List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government gets two big fat paragraphs at List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and another one in another subsection. Here the players, the largest and arguably most important aspect of the Hall, get 2 sentences. That's hardly "providing at least all of the major items." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So more comprehensive summary paragraphs for the sub-listed tables would meet your concerns? Geraldk (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Stax and I can agree on this, which is why I haven't supported yet. Section leads for the sub-listed articles should be more comprehensive, in the nature of mini-leads themselves. Geraldk (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I am willing to expand the paragraphs to meet Staxringold's comment. But I don't think I can satisfy that within this nomination period, I will consult with Dabomb first before withdrawing.—Chris!c/t 03:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
|
- Dabomb asked me to stop by, as I'm the major contributor to the group of Jesus College lists. Initially, there was only one list – "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" – and that got the FL star. As more articles were written and added, the list had to be split into various sub-lists: at one point, the template limit had been reached on the page, breaking the citations, and the page regularly exceeded 200kb in total; it's still 190kb+ even with four offspring lists. I hope that it's a good way of doing things where the length of sub-lists means that combining all the names on one page would result in a list that was very difficult to load and edit; looking at the HoF lists, I think that would be the case here too. Another perhaps more relevant precedent, approved by FLC rather than edited this way later, is List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign / Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign - a FL (and lead list of the FT), which links to 8 sub-lists (all FLs) in simple fashion. So I don't agree that this list has to contain all the names in each sub-list in order to be comprehensive, with further details being given at the sub-list. That seems unnecessary duplication. Personally, I wouldn't even have a table for the most recent recipients - it looks odd to me to have such a short table (which hardly need to be sortable), as on first glance it makes it look as though these are the only recipients, and it would help to distinguish between the sections which are complete (e.g. referees) and the summaries if only the complete sections had tables. Far better, I would think, to summarise the sub-list, and mention the most recent recipients in the text. In the Jesus lists, the summaries follow the leads of the sublists, but I think that the summaries here need to be longer and mention more names, as the leads of the sub-lists are quite thin. So, at present, I think the "coaches" section summary needs to be expanded somewhat, and the "contributors" and "players" have no summary at all. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started to revamp those sections according to your advice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, the numbers of Basketball Hall of Fame induction and Baseball Hall of Fame induction are almost equivalent. But the reason why Basketball Hall of Fame get split up in the first place is because it is too long. No disrespect to the editors who worked hard on the Baseball list, but I think it is too bare bone compared to this list. It merely lists all inductees without providing much description about them. I have absolutely no problem with you opposing, but I feel that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria in WP:FL?. And I am not sure what I can do to satisfy your request.—Chris!c/t 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can definitely try to expand the lead, but don't think I can make it as long as the one on Baseball Hall of Fame. It seems to me that the long length is due to the complexity of the induction and selection criteria. The criteria for induction here is much simpler.—Chris!c/t 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that?—Chris!c/t 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the divisions (including contributors) are official Hall of Fame categories; Chris and I did not divide the individuals ourselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know they're the five categories, but it just seems odd that contributors has been split off into its own list, rather than a section in this list. The only reasons I can think of for contributors being a stand alone list are the section's length relative to referees and teams, and the fact that it lies alphabetically between coaches and players. I don't think either of these are particularly good reasons to split a list.
- Consider the proportion of readers who would consider seeking out hall of fame players or coaches alone, compared to the proportion of readers who would consider seeking out hall of fame contributors alone. WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you are right. But since it has been split, I think it is counter-productive to merge them again.—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it shouldn't be done for the sake of it on my say-so alone, but I disagree that it would be in any way counter-productive. Assuming there was consensus, it would be a simple copy-paste, and a redirect to the parent article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are:
- "Renato William Jonesis the only inductee to be enshrined as a contributor." Firstly the minor typo, secondly it's not obvious what "enshrining" means. I originally thought the inductees were all enshrined into the hall of fame.
- Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could teams be included in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the lead, or is there a reason not to do so? From what I can tell they are inducted on an ad-hoc basis at the committees' discretion.
- Added—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to create the article, but I just thought I'd check whether Orsten Artis would qualify for an article at some stage in the future?
- Yes, I suppose—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Merged now, although I don't agree with it.—Chris!c/t 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:
- 2a. If yes to 1, what information about players and coaches would you expect to see here, while still making those articles meaningful and useful additions?
- 2b. If no to 1, are you saying that the length of a merged list would not prevent you from supporting the list, if other concerns were met (for instance the player achievements column was completed)?
Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re WFCforLife: I appreciate your attempt to help restart the discussion. There seems to be a deadlock about this issue.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To opposers: I echo WFCforLife's comment. Please respond below to keep discussion unfragmented, thanks.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the first question, I would say that, in their present format, they could be seen as meeting 3b; in fact, I believe I supported the coaches list when it was at FLC.
- I would expect a very basic table, without the extensive achievements notes since those are a critical factor in the seperate lists meeting 3b. If the seperate list needed to be beefed up further, perhaps a team column could be considered as well.
- One more note: I feel better about this list now that the contributors have been merged in. To me, it now feels more like a list in its own right, rather than something that primarily redirects the reader to other lists. Even in Bencherlite's example, the main list has plenty of content on its own without the split-off sections. The merge that happened brings this list closer to that standard. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Lead says 56 contributors, Contributors section says "In total, 49 individuals..."
- Heading should be "inductee", not "inductees", as each row contains only one inductee, right?
- Any chance of denoting when Stagg was "active"?
- " for 3 decades" - three decades.
- "last-built, molded basketball" what does "last-built" mean here?
- "5 New England" - five.
- What does NABC mean?
- Link Globetrotters.
- What's NAIB and NAIA?
- 7 terms = seven terms.
- What's NIT?
- 3-time, 2-time - words.
- What's WNBA?
- What's NHL?
- Olympic Games is linked in the players section but you've mentioned olympics in the coaches section already without linking it...
- One table achievements are centrally aligned and next table they're left aligned. I'd be consistent.
- What's SEC?
- Sortable tables means that linked items should be linked every time, e.g. the Helsinki olympic games.
- What's NIT?
- What's ABL?
- "Have played .." no need for "Have..."
- "25th anniversary tour is highlighted" - was highlighted?
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from KV5
I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:
- I see some undefined abbreviations; AAU jumps out at me right from the start. Further down in the list, I see this: "National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB)/National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)". Maybe it would make sense to key all abbreviations at the top of the list and then remove the written-out names from the tables. This especially makes sense because sortability could easily cause a single written-out name to occur after an abbreviation.
- Not sure if a key is a good idea. There are 20 or more abbreviations used, done AAU.—Chris!c/t 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other shortened names that aren't explicit are "Trotters" and "Rens".
- "Big 8" - the name of the article is Big Eight Conference, and MOSNUM would agree that it should be written out.
- "7 Big Ten titles during late 19th century and early 20th century (Chicago)" - what school is this? A link may be helpful.
- "having coached the Kansas Jayhawks (college) and the Detroit Pistons (NBA) to championships" - should be consistent: either (college) ... (professional) or (NCAA) ... (NBA)
- "As of induction of the Class of 2009" - date?
Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [28].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to make aware one issue that has been raised. In working on this list, I essentially followed the formats used in List of Indiana state symbols, List of Kentucky state symbols, and List of Maryland state symbols (all of which have FL status) for the sake of uniformity. In some ways, I feel the Oregon list is even better in that the description actually indicates why the symbol is significant in relation to the state itself; the other lists mentioned either lack descriptions or do not offer specific significance. Over at WikiProject Oregon, Esprqii and Katr67 commented on the list; I feel I addressed Esprqii's request for the Description column, but Katr67's preference for a single sortable column has not been accommodated (nor has Katr67 edited the list to be a single table). I have no problem with Katr67's request, but I was not sure if having sections (Insignia, Flora, etc.) was preferable to FL reviewers. I will leave it up to review to decide whether a single table is preferable; it makes no difference to me, as I care more about the symbols and descriptions themselves, not necessarily how they are displayed. To all reviewers, thanks for taking the time to offer suggestions and comments. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lead is a bit short—Chris!c/t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly work on expanding the lead.
Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If additional suggestions are made for expanding the lead, I will be happy to try to accommodate. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ok, I am satisfied.—Chris!c/t 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Until it is decided whether one table would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year (apart from the first one, which does not need the sort function). --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. --Esprqii (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Again, until it is decided whether one list would be better or not, I went ahead and made the tables sortable by Type, Symbol or Year. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) --Esprqii (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Esprqii. Your support is much appreciated, as are your contributions. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Oppose for now - I think you're right that the inclusion of the text descriptions is a big improvement, and will set the standard for these lists in the future. I'm interested to see what other reviewers says about combining the tables to allow for sortability - that's something I'd like to do for the Maryland list as well. But I have serious concerns.
- First, Chris is right, the lead could use some expansion (as could leads in all three of the existing ones, including the Maryland one I helped get through FLC).
- First, I appreciate your compliment. I can certainly expand the lead.
Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Second, in at least one spot the source does not back up claims in the description, the claim that only Oregon sunstone includes copper crystals.
- Thanks for the reminder! I took the information from the Sunstone article, which uses a jewelry website as a source. Knowing it was not reliable, I did not add the source to the list, but forgot to find a replacement. I went ahead and removed the copper part--I will re-add if I find a reliable source. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Third, some of the text comes perilously close to copying verbatim from the sources, to an extent that is more worrisome than simple paraphrasing. A couple of examples:
- Your text, "Dawn redwood flourished in the Miocene epoch and left its record embedded in rocks across Oregon." Source text, "The Metasequoia flourished in the Miocene epoch of 25 to 5 million years ago and left its record embedded in rocks across the Oregon landscape."
- Your text, "Salmon provided the basis for the coastal Native Americans' life, and was the subject of many legends, special rites, and taboos." Source text, "Salmon provided the basis for the coastal Native Americans' life and so was naturally held in high regard. Many legends, special rites, and taboos were connected with the coming of salmon."
- I can work on paraphrasing further, but it is hard to re-word such short descriptions, especially when I am trying to keep them brief myself. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I worked on paraphrasing further. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*What's salal? (in the flower one)
- Done. I added a link to the salal article and described what it is briefly. Hope that addresses the concern. --Esprqii (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Esprqii. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is shgresources.com a reliable source?
I can find replacement sources. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC) --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geraldk (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Working on the lead now. Any other suggestions as far as expansion goes? I wanted to indicate which symbol types were unique to Oregon (for instance, if Oregon was the only state to have an official Statehood Pageant or Team), but I cannot find sources to cite these claims. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I strongly support having the information in a single table. The current multiple table format is great so far as a presentation by category, but it would also be useful to view the list by year of adoption. To accomodate both presentations requires either two lists or a single sortable table; of these two possibilities, the single sortable table is much preferable. The loss of horizontal real estate could be made up by putting the image directly under the symbol name and putting the notes directly under the year of adoption. I'd be glad to do the heavy lifting on this, but don't wish to do it unilaterally. YBG (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For comparison's sake, I created a single-table version in my user space here. I like being able to sort by year and type in one table rather than individually. See what you all think. --Esprqii (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. Thank you for taking the time to make the single list. It appears there is a preference for a single, sortable table, so feel free to copy the table over (being sure to adjust for the corrections you made to the list since then). I had the symbols sorted chronologically by default, but it does make more sense to go alphabetically by symbol, as you have it. Then, if interested, the table can sort by date. Once you have copied the table over, I will be sure to add the flag and seal, as discussed on the list's talk page. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Esprqii's single table looks great -- though it does not include a column for the 'category' or whatever the section headings should be called. Is there any interest in trying to combine columns for better presentation and better usage of horizontal real estate? I tried briefly, but wasn't satisfied. Also, the Portland State Office building includes some artwork for some of these state emblems. The Public Health Division page in the Oregon Bluebook has photo that gives you some idea of what is there, but close-up pictures might make a nice addition here. YBG (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it looks good as is--I doubt there is a need to indicate that a flower is "Flora" and milk is a "Culture" symbol. I went ahead and used Esprqii's single table form to edit the list, incorporating the wording changes made since then. I added the Flag, so all that remains is the seal (which has quite a bit of history). The list looks great! Thanks so much for collaborating. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I am not terribly familiar with which images can be used and which ones cannot. Am I right in assuming that all Portland Trail Blazers logos are unsuitable for use on this list? Surely there must be an image we can use to illustrate the Trail Blazers. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a free team photo if one can be found or a photo of their stadium (like this one? In order to be included in the article the current image would have to meet all 10 criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Currently it fails 10c but the real question is whether it could ever pass criterion 8, does having it really "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - probably not. Guest9999 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Replaced image, along with the caption and alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the 'state team' designation given to the 1990-91 Trailblazers, it seems a picture of that year's team would be more appropriate. In any event, ground was not broken on the Rose Garden until 1993, so a picture of the Memorial Coliseum would be better. YBG (talk) 03:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. While I am not familiar with uploading images, apart from album covers for infoboxes, I went ahead and changed the Rose Garden image to one of the Memorial Coliseum. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job by the nominator to implement all the right suggestions by the reviewers. This is the best list among these state symbol lists and should be used as a model by the editors who work on these lists.--Cheetah (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Done.
- Image:Map of USA OR.svg – I don't think this should be in an article about Oregon's state symbols. If readers really want to know, they can click on the link to the Oregon article. I would rather see something more relevant, or no image at all.
- A good idea; perhaps the state flag would be good here?
- I think so, if you don't mind having the state flag in the article twice. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the map as that is what some of the other featured lists for state symbols used. If this is not preferred, I have no problem with the flag or another symbol being used. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is by far the best state symbols list we have on Wikipedia. I don't think we need to follow the example of the lower-quality ones. So yes, I think a flag or another symbol would be better here. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "100-foot Metasequoia trees" Need a metric conversion (use {{convert}} if necessary, and don't forget to put
adj=on into the template).
- Done.
- Done, removed redundant link. --Esprqii (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say is that, according to the site, the information on eNature is the "same data set used to create the printed Audubon Field Guides", and "all the data has been carefully reviewed and vetted by leading biologists, zoologists and other natural history specialists." If the site is not considered reliable, I'd be happy to track down another source to provide a physical description of the Oregon hairy triton. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be appreciated, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retracted idea about combining columns from YBG
|
(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I very much appreciate your attempt to improve the list, I definitely prefer the previous version. To me, this version looks a bit cluttered, with the image sitting just below the symbol name, and it was also nice having a separate column for the references so that the numbers were separated from the other dates and descriptions. However, it would be nice to get feedback from other reviewers as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree that putting the images in the same column as the symbol name column makes the list cluttered. I don't see any benefit to putting the refs in the "Adopted" column as opposed to their own; also, it makes it look as if only the years are referenced, as opposed to the entire row. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I will go ahead and revert to the previous version. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and reverted. For the record, here is the version suggested by YBG. If consensus concludes that this version is better, it can always be changed back. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input. I appreciate the fact that you waited for another person to aggree before reverting. Incidentally, I agree that it did appear a bit cluttered and needed to be touched up. For example, to correct the problem of the notes appearing to be just related to the date of adoption, some of them could have been moved to the description column or the symbol column. I didn't take the time to sort that out. My motivation was to make it more concise and balance out the columns a bit. While I like white space, having some columns that are almost entirely white space and others that are quite full makes it seem unbalanced. Additionally, the 6-column table is about 50% longer than the 4-column version, and so takes longer to scroll through if you just want to get a quick birds-eye view of the topic. Incidentally, there was also an intervening version which combined Adopted and Notes while keeping Symbol and Image separate. And thanks for your kind words of appreciaiton for the effort I spent editing -- although it really wasn't that much. YBG (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:
- √ Consider using a horizontal rule to separate the obverse and reverse of the State Flag. I made this minor change in the version mentioned above and thought it looked nice.
- √ Consider using 1987<br>1854-1957 for the state motto dates.
Consider putting 'State<br>Animal' and the like in the first column. Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider grouping topically like section titles in the non-tabular version. Retracted YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider left-justifying the contents of description column; centered prose seems a bit odd. Retracted now that column widths are better, no appreciable difference YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- √ What about the State Seal? Should it have an entry like the flag?
Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from YBG
|
Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts on YBG's comments:
- I like it. A thin boundary (i.e. horizontal divider) would look better in the middle of that column.
- Also a good idea.
- Not sure what is meant here. I don't think the word "State" should be put in each row, as it is clear this is about state symbols.
- I prefer alphabetical sorting, which is easy, objective and intuitive; also, the topics might be hard to define.
- No preference; centered or left-aligned is fine with me.
- I don't see why the seal shouldn't have an entry. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YBG, I appreciate your suggestions. This list is truly the product of a great collaboration. My thoughts:
- Great idea. Done.
- Done.
- I do not think "State" is necessary. It would be redundant, and it is obvious the list is about state symbols.
- Agree with Dabomb87. I think alphabetical is most appropriate.
- I prefer the centered text, mostly because all other cells are centered, but I don't feel terribly strong about it either way.
- Oh yes! The state seal.
It should definitely be added, but I made a comment on the list's talk page about how the history of the seal is a bit complicated. I was not exactly sure which date to use. Any suggestions? Adding this seal may mean some adjustments need to be made to the lead, depending on which dates/information is used for the entry. Thanks for the reminder. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I completed the row for the Seal, and adjusted the lead appropriately. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these ideas are resolved or retracted, except for left-justifying the description column. I'd like to defer that and consider it along with some other white-space related issues I'll bring up below. YBG (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Left-justifying now retracted also; entire group of ideas collapsed together. YBG (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
OK, here's a couple more ideas:
(a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted'
(b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
What do you think? YBG (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from YBG and column width
|
- (a) I don't feel strongly about "Year adopted" or "Adopted", but I feel "Year adopted" is calling a spade a spade (it is what it is). Although, for the motto and seal, which have a bit more complicated of a history, "Adopted" might be better since they have several significant dates. (b) I like the columns are they are now, and I have no problem with the separate column for notes/references. I like things less cluttered. I was waiting to see if any suggestions were going to be offered regarding the state seal and its history (and which dates should be used for adoption), but I
will just go ahead and take went ahead and took a stab at it myself. YBG, if any of the six points made above have been addressed or retracted, feel free to strike them or place them in a collapse box so I know that the issue has been taken care of. Thanks so much! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strike-out, √-marks, collapse-boxes added above to show its mostly-resolved.
- In the list itself, I changed "Year Adopted" to "Adopted".
- Looking at the whole list, I think it would be improved if Description was moved to the end (or just before the Notes if we're going to keep that as a separate column). Then if the Description was left justified, and all cells vertically aligned at the top, I think the visual appeal would be greatly improved .... the content-area and the white-space would be both generally triangular in shape, giving each entry a greater distinction from the other entries while at the same time uniting the whole list together. I may be way off base on this, but unless you've got some big issues, I think it would be worth trying just to be able to see if it should stick or be reverted. YBG (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have any problems with the list in its current form, but if it bothers you then you are welcome to experiment. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the form didn't 'bother me', but I did think there was room for improvement, so I made some changes for others to view:
- Left justified 'Description' and moved it toward the end
- Removed the column percentages. This made a significant improvement in appearance -- more than moving the description column =- so I no longer think top-aligning the columns will make any significant further improvement.
- So, what do the rest of you think? YBG (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly welcome other reviewers to add input, but for the record I much prefer the previous version. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the old version too, but not necessarily because the aesthetics were better. For some reason, the current revision of the article occupies only three-fourths of my browser; the far right quarter is just whitespace. The previous version did not have this problem. For this reason, I don't agree with the most recent edit either. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours.
|
Type |
Symbol |
Descr |
Adopted |
Image |
Descr |
Note |
Total
|
Old %'s
|
18% |
30% |
40% |
13% |
13% |
|
8% |
122%
|
No %'s
|
- |
- |
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
-
|
New %'s 1
|
14% |
17% |
|
2% |
15% |
50% |
2% |
100%
|
New %'s 2
|
16% |
20% |
|
5% |
2% |
55% |
2% |
100%
|
As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the original order of columns. To me, it looks strange to have the images in the center of the page. I prefer the original version in all ways, except I think the Type and Symbol column widths could be decreased a bit to reduce white space. The current version looks okay as far as the Type and Symbol widths go, though I do think the Description column is too wide, especially compared to all of the others. Again, I think the column order should be Type, Symbol, Description, Adopted, Image, and Note, as this seems to be the best way to convey the information to readers based on importance. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also prefer the image on the side. I think it would look OK on the left, to the right of the "Type" column as well, but I'm happy with it on the right. --Esprqii (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what more do I need to do at this point? I mean, I feel I should be the one making edits to the article to satisfy reviewers, but at the same time I do not want to step on a reviewer's toes who is making edits to the list. Do I need to revert to the original version, keeping the recent punctuation edits that were made? Do I need to wait for other proposals made by YBG. I have no problem waiting, I just didn't know if there was more I needed to do at this point.
- I think the best compromise might be to revert to the original version, but lessen the widths of the Type and Symbols columns. This would satisfy requests that the image return to the right-hand side of the page, but less white space would exist, which is something I think YBG, Dabomb, and even I think would be preferable. Shall I do this, or did you have any other ideas YBG? --Another Believer (Talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead and revert and change the column widths to something not quite a drastic as I had. What about the left-justification of description? In the midst of all of the other changes, did you notice enough difference to have a preference? YBG (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I reverted, replaced the minor edits made since the column width changes, and played with the widths a bit myself. What do you think? I like it, though I think a little longer width would be nice for the Symbol column, with a bit less for the Description and Note columns. I do prefer the centered Description text, mostly because all of the other cells are centered, but I don't think that it would be too distracting if the text were left-justified. Thoughts on the current widths? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great! Thanks for your patience working through my nit-picking and your willingness to take an honest look at my different ideas. (I
will shortly collapse have now collapsed some of my comments above) I still have a very slight preference for left-justifying the description, mostly because it is a prose paragraph, but now that we have the widths tweaked nicely, I don't think it makes much difference. To get more width in the 21% Symbol column, would you like to try merging the 4% Notes column into it -- that would give a total of 25%? Yes, a separate notes column is a bit less cluttered, so it is a matter of weighing that disadvantage against the advantage of a slightly wider Symbol column. If the extra horizontal space makes an appreciable difference, I say let's go for it. YBG (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I couldn't resist playing some more -- but this time I did it on a sub-page of my user page. Here's the results:
- Merged Note column into Symbol column — Some improvement.
- Expanded Symbol column by 1% — This one is the best in my browser.
- Vertically align — I was a bit disappointed with this one.
- What do you think? YBG (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to sound like a broken record, or one unwilling to accept changes suggested by others, but I still prefer the current version. --Another Believer (Talk) 09:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current version, version 1, and version 2 all look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's fine with me -- I wasn't trying to beat a dead horse, just responding to the request for more width in the symbol column. In my browser, the extra width removed some of the surplus line breaks in the symbol column. Anyway, I'm satisfied that we've reached the best possible considering the inherit problems of trying to cope with multiple browsers and multiple screen sizes. YBG (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Merge the first two paragraphs of the lead - a short, two-sentence intro para looks weak.
- Done.
- Happily you could make the lead image larger if resolution allows for it.
- I was under the impression thumbs were preferred, as they adjusted based on personal computer configurations.
- Well last time I checked the MOS, it allowed images of up to 300px. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the lead is shorter, I think the current size is appropriate. If you disagree, I can change.
- "She Flies With Her Own Wings" really? What makes it not mean "He flies with his own wings"? And not sure we need to continually capitalise those words...
- Not sure. Just going off what sources indicate.
- Interesting. I see nothing in that particular Latin phrase that indicates "she" rather than "he"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "33rd state on" expand a little - the 33rd state of the United States I'm guessing.
- Yes, and I think this is implied since the first sentence mentions "U.S. state".
- I think you could expand it for those non-US readers who may not be able to make that jump. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- "until more than 50 years later" - more than -> over.
- Done.
- Last para of lead should probably be a section after the actual symbols since it discusses, in detail, symbols that didn't make it...
- Shall I just create a "Rejected symbols" section and move the bulleted list there? My concern is that it would just look like a stand-alone list of facts. Should it be changed back to prose, as it was previously?
- My preference would be to have a section of rejected symbols in prose, after the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- I agree that the rejected symbols should appear after the actual ones. Much better to have the real symbols appear first rather than the wannabee. And if there were just one or two, prose would be best. But with a list of four items, a bulleted list allows the reader to scan the list easily. (Full disclosure: I was the one who reformatted it into a bulleted list.) Also, I think the term 'rejected' could be improved on. The paragraph says 'but were ultimately rejected' -- but it seems to me that 'but ultimately were not adopted' better reflects the various ways that these four symbols failed to gain official status. YBG (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will let The Rambling Man reply before I make any changes to the article. I don't have a preference for prose or a bulleted list in this case. I have no problem with "but ultimately were not adopted" in the paragraph, but what would the section be called? Rejected does imply that these symbols were voted against, when really they were just not successful. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to make the "type" of symbol bold.
- I prefer the bolding, but will remove if required. Was following the format used by other featured lists.
- The other lists need to be fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- "through proper management" - is that fact or opinion?
- Done. Removed "proper".
- schoolchildren or school children?
- I think either is acceptable. "Schoolchild" exists in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
- Quite, but be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Sorry, I did not realize both instances were used. I thought you were just questioning the validity of the word "schoolchildren". Both uses now read as "school children" for consistency. Done.
- "make jelly" - I'd be tempted to link jelly because to UK readers, for instance, jelly is not jelly, it's jam...
- Done. Linked to Fruit preserves.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional suggestions. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.