Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey
- 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 Matthewedwards 23:40, 28 February 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
This is one I got together fairly quickly and I hope this is the final piece of a potential Triple Gold Club FT. The table format is new, some alternate formats are here (A is the original). My reason for the switch was that a lot of people who visit the page are likely more interested in what team won the year rather than who the individual members were. As it was, it was difficult to browse through and pick out winners, so I thought the collapsible tables would help. That way, anyone who wants to know who the members of a team were can easily find it. It does have it's downsides though, one has to open each collapsed header manually and ctrl-F is not useable. Either way, this is a WikiCup entry and all concerns are welcome and will be addressed by me or Maxim. -- Scorpion0422 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - I note a bit of rushing ;)
|
- Support -- Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really see the Show tags with IE, they mostly overlap the (CAN) part of the country name. I like the idea in principle though. CloudQuest (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which version do you have? It might be that your browser isn't wide enough. -- Scorpion0422 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IE 7, screen resolution is 800x600 CloudQuest (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's the problem. The table is 825 px wide. I've tried narrowing it, is it better? -- Scorpion0422 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that didn't help. I think you need to either widen the columns (and thus the whole table) or remove the flag icons and abbreviations. I think it would be preferable to make someone like me scroll sideways to see the final column rather than making the show tags illegible as they are for me now. CloudQuest (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The table looks great at screen width 1024, I need a new monitor :) CloudQuest (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification, do you think the table should be made wider than it was originally? -- Scorpion0422 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. CloudQuest (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, each column is now 250px and the entire think should be roughly 875px. -- Scorpion0422 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it's still very messy but I've got to go offline now. I'll try to stop by again, but don't take this as an oppose. CloudQuest (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, each column is now 250px and the entire think should be roughly 875px. -- Scorpion0422 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. CloudQuest (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification, do you think the table should be made wider than it was originally? -- Scorpion0422 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that didn't help. I think you need to either widen the columns (and thus the whole table) or remove the flag icons and abbreviations. I think it would be preferable to make someone like me scroll sideways to see the final column rather than making the show tags illegible as they are for me now. CloudQuest (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The table looks great at screen width 1024, I need a new monitor :) CloudQuest (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's the problem. The table is 825 px wide. I've tried narrowing it, is it better? -- Scorpion0422 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IE 7, screen resolution is 800x600 CloudQuest (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which version do you have? It might be that your browser isn't wide enough. -- Scorpion0422 02:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have switched back to the previous version of the table. There were still objections at the Olympics WikiProject, and as Andrwsc pointed out, it's meant to be a list of the individual medalists and a companion to the Ice hockey at the Olympic Games article. -- Scorpion0422 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Andrwsc
- The "Medals per year" table seems like an obtuse kind of summary for a team sport. Is it really needed? The main article has a better summary in its "Participating nations" section, where instead of "1" or "—" in each table cell (or "2" since the introduction of the women's tournament) it shows a final placement, with gold/silver/bronze colouring for the medalists. I don't see a need to repeat this data in a different form. (But the "Athlete medal leaders" section on this list is great; good work in compiling that!) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved discussion about 1920 Czech roster
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Still looking though. The solution may be to go with the Czech NOC and add a note about what the IOC says. They are the two most official sources, so what they say matters more than the secondary sources. -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 28 February 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.