Talk:Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders

Lists of Michigan Wolverines football passing leaders is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 28, 2007	Featured list candidate	Promoted
June 16, 2009	Featured list removal candidate	Demoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 8, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that due to both lengthening seasons and freshmen eligibility, college football statistical leaders such as Michigan Wolverines football receiving or passing leaders are controversial?

Current status: Former featured list

College football

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles

Michigan

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles

Merge

I feel that this list, as well as Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders and Lists of Michigan Wolverines football rushing leaders could be merged into a master "Lists of Michigan Wolverines football statistical leaders." As they are, they are just three splits of limited notability (considering that most of the NFL teams don't have similar articles) and none of them are particularily large. If merged together, a page would be under 60 K, which is perfectly acceptable. One list would be more useful than three. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be a good merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the new policy is on separate lists. I personally would leave them separate, but don't know what the guidelines are now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further thoughts, I agree with Cbl and JKBrooks and Oppose the merger. I think the merged list is quite a large conglomerations of tables. I have never seen so many tables in one article before. I think these are preferable as separate lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge makes sense though, since most of the prose in the articles recreate eachother. The tables aren't particularily large, and I think having them together makes sense. If you are concerned about the length, they could be trimmed. A merged page also allows room for field goal statistics to be included. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The three articles in question are each about 20,000 bytes. Each of them is well done. Indeed, thanks to the hard work of TonyTheTiger, each of the three lists has been acknowledged by the community as a "Featured List." If the three articles were merged, you'd end up with an unwieldy article with more than 60,000 bytes of data, and it would be difficult to navigate. I think the information is more accessible as currently presented. The fact that most NFL teams don't have similar articles is not a persuasive argument for changing this one. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the featured list criteria have changed recently. Take note of criterion 3b: "[the list] meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." On an unrelated note, is there any link from one of these articles to another? Dabomb87 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to go with the oppose here; as Cbl62 stated, there's so much information in each of these that it'd be difficult to merge well. If someone were to create a nice merged version on a talk page, however, I might be persuaded otherwise. Until then, I'm just not convinced. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the merging proposal per criteria 3b—Chris! _ct 05:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Let's see what a merged list would look like. The lists in question seem to be of a pretty high quality, so I'd like to see if combining them would be a net improvement. De FaultRyan 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought Scorpion. I could see the argument for each side, but I would have to say at this moment I would leave them be. But as stated above, I would be interested to see what the new list would be like if it was combined. I think then it would be easier to discuss whether combining the lists make a net improvement. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've quickly thrown together a sample of a merge here. Note that I didn't read through the text much, so I'm sure there is some recreation in there, but I wasd mainly concerned with the format. The version is 45,259 bytes, which is a lot shorter than I expected, but, the three leads are almost exact recreations of eachother (about 90%) and none of them really summarized their article very well. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is most certainly within limits; I would strongly support a merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Scorpion! I would now be confident that a merge would represent a net improvement. I support the proposed merge. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I'm starting to see how this could function. You get some prose for each section, and it could work pretty well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments? I think this could be called a no consensus at the moment, so I don't want to take any pages to FLRC quite yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with no consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are two opposers. JKBrooks originally disagreed, but later decided that he liked the proposed version. Cbl62's oppose was based largely on length concerns and the loss of content, but I feel that the merged version's length of 45000 is very acceptable, and it cuts out the leads which were basically recreations of eachother. I'd be interested to see what his opinion of it is. TonyTheTiger's oppose is based around tables, but I think they could be cut down. Several users did state that the merged version was a net improvement, and it would also allow for other stats to be included. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having see Scorpion's sandbox version I think this merge is a good idea. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Combined example looks great. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me - rst20xx (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]