Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NATO Secretaries General/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Dabomb87 12:41, 5 April 2009 [1].

List of NATO Secretaries General

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cool3 (talk)
Toolbox

Well, this is a fairly short list, just 14 entries, but it is comprehensive and I believe it meets all the FL criteria. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Under the current criteria, this appears to fail 3b. I withdraw my nomination. Depending on how interpretation of the criteria progresses, it might be back, but it seems not to fit in. Thanks to everyone who participated, even if this is not FL eligible, I think we made some good improvements. Cool3 (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • Please format references properly - some are missing publisher, author info
    • Empty cells need emdash
    • Is there a reason why the table is not sortable?
    • A side issue: Why create a seperate list when the main article is so short? There is a discussion about changing the FL criteria regarding these kind of lists. I will see what other reviewers think first.

—Chris! ct 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references now have all of the information available. For some of them (i.e., the ones on the NATO website), many of the fields just don't apply. I've added dashes in all the empty cells. As for why the list isn't sortable, I decided that it was short enough that there was no need to sort it, and what would you sort for anyway? If people feel differently, I'm open to changing this. Cool3 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think for refs, access dates definitely apply. As for sortability, I still think it is a good idea to have that. Names and dates can be sortable, for instance.—Chris! ct 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, I don't know why I didn't put in access dates (duh!), and I'll go ahead and make it sortable.
Oh, I forget to mention that names won't sort correctly without using {{sortname}}. Sorry about that.—Chris! ct 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I figured that out. All the fields are sortable now, and should sort correctly. Also had to use dts to make the dates sort. Cool3 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as per the proposal linked above, it reads: "A featured list should not have less than ten items; exceptions must be discussed beforehand on a case-by-case basis." This is at fourteen (or at least 11 if you just want to count the true appointments). It could be merged with Secretary General of NATO, I suppose. As a matter of fact, I unmerged the two this morning. My reason for doing so is that I also plan a large expansion of the Secretary General of NATO article. Yes, we could just stick this list in there, but I think it's worth having separately. As that article grows in develops, it will become clunkier and clunkier to have the list incorporated within it. There also other featured lists of comparable length. For example: List of African American United States Cabinet Secretaries. Cool3 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't see any difference of information that cannot be stated in the main article. The list itself doesn't say much that the main article doesn't, so the 10-item rule doesn't apply here because listing 10 different apples wouldn't be enough to warrant a List of apples list, but over 7,500 is.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for more inputs on this before deciding on this issue.—Chris! ct 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think List of Governors of Hawaii is a good precedent. It's an FL with 18 entries (4 more than this one) and a relatively short main article. The FLC is here. Basically, I think what this all boils down is that it is useful for people to have a separate list of things like this to look at. Cool3 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look also at List of premiers of Saskatchewan with exactly 14 entries as well. Cool3 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the new criteria is passed, this will not meet those standards per WP:FORK.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - FLC isn't where we decide if articles should be merged, so I'll proceed as usual. That said, there are numerous issues.
  • Bold font shouldn't be linked per WP:MOS.
  • The Secretary-General typically serves for a four year term, but he or she may be asked to serve for a fifth year or longer, with the consensus of the member states. - Shouldn't "four year" be hyphenated?
  • The opening image should be larger.
  • The lead is pretty short; is there any further information?
  • Why are some dates linked and others not?
  • The three images in the Secretaries General section overlap.
  • References #2–9 need accessdates.
  • Link The New York Times, etc?

–Juliancolton | Talk 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bold font is delinked
  • Opening image increased in size to 250px
  • I suppose further information could be included in the lead, but it tells you everything you need to know, imho.
  • Sorry, I don't see any linked dates. Which one/ones are you referring to? Oh, the caption of the image. Delinked.
  • Removed one image, they don't overlap on my screen, but this should take care of it for others
  • Access dates linked everywhere
  • All newspaper titles linked on first occurrence. Cool3 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton, I understand that normally FLC is not a proper place to decide if articles should be merged. But if you read the current discussion about a possible criteria change to WP:FL?, you will notice that the new criteria include a part that says lists shouldn't be content fork. That why I brought this up.—Chris! ct 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I was comparing the article against the current criteria, which is what we should all be doing in my opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Even though it passes the current criteria, it might not for the new one. It seems to be a waste of time to pass the lists now, and have them demoted a few months later. In fact, some nominations are already put on hold by the directors b/c of this reason.—Chris! ct 01:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I feel it's unfair to the nominator to judge an article against a set of tentative criterion which may or may not be implemented. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to point out, that I'm not really even convinced that this would violate the proposed policies. It is clearly more than ten items. As for the content fork issue. It is no more of a fork than any other that lists people to have held any political office. We have, by my count, around 50 of those already. Some of them (mentioned above) are of a comparable length to this one. So, I see no reason to put this article on hold or oppose it on the grounds of its size. Can't we focus this discussion on how the article meets the standards as they stand? Cool3 (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all those content fork lists maybe delisted in the future, but there is no reason to add to it by continuing to promote new content fork lists. But this is just my opinion, so don't take this reply seriously.—Chris! ct 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Scorpion undid my action, which is completely fine with me. I don't see how this article is a valid content fork of its main article, and so I'll oppose on the same lines as Chris. Perhaps you could withdraw this FLC and resubmit it after the criteria is finalised if we adopt a policy that would declare it not to fail the content fork criteria. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I undid your edit because the section is meant for FLCs that have been open at least 10 days, not because I disagree with you. -- Scorpion0422 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone interested, I've update the Secretary General of NATO article substantially, and plan to continue working on it (though not this evening). I hope this helps address some of your concerns. Cool3 (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article is particularly long, and some is redundant. I support merging them back together. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 3b. The FL criteria has been changed, and I don't believe this list needs to be separate. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_NATO_Secretaries_General/archive1&oldid=1143874313"