Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1908 Summer Olympics medal table/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 21:16, 31 July 2011 [1].

1908 Summer Olympics medal table

edit

1908 Summer Olympics medal table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is now inline with the existing Olympic medal table FLs (i.e. 1896 Summer Olympics medal table and 1976 Summer Olympics medal table). I've done some touchups back and January and some more recently, although most of the referencing was completed over a year ago (but fortunately archived).

While I believe it is inline with existing FL medal tables, it has been a couple of years since the most recent one was promoted, and so I'm more than happy to make changes. Miyagawa (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And after saying that, I notice the Paraolympic nomination three nominations below! :) Miyagawa (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Would expect dates to be in British format, although as an international event, I'm torn.
  • I wondered about this myself, and decided in the end to stick to international so as to match the other medal lists.
  • Lead image doesn't need a full stop, and for medals do we talk about obverse rather than reverse like we do for coins?
  • Fixed.
  • "and an increase from two medals" from 2 to 146, certainly does qualify as an increase. Just reads a little strangely to me.
  • change the and to a semicolon, which I think improves it a little.
  • "occured" is missing an r. And I'm not keen on "dominance occurring" either.
  • Changed this to "Success occurred for the British team..." as on second read through it wasn't very npov.
  • "men's 400 meters" -> metres.
  • Fixed.
  • Bronze col doesn't sort properly.
  • Nor does rank.
  • Inserted sort templates for those two, so it should all work fine now.
  • Refs 2 and 5 need an en-dash.
  • Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "The host nation, United Kingdom, dominated the medal table". Should "the" be put before the country name, like in the third paragraph?
  • Corrected as per suggestion.
  • "they only did not win the middleweight silver medal." This is the only part of the whole text I'd consider a touch wordy. How about "they won all but the middleweight silver medal."?
  • Thanks, every time I'd looked at the sentence I wasn't happy with it but couldn't think of a better way to say it. Have changed it to your suggested prose.
  • Medal table: "This information is provided by the IOC however the IOC does not recognize or endorses any ranking system." Three points here, two for the list in question and one for me. First, there should be some form of punctuation before "however"; I'm partial to the semi-colon here, but a comma would also work. Second, "endorses" should be singular. Third, does the IOC's (lack of) endorsement go for all the tables or just this one? This is different from the other Olympic medal table FLs I can recall, including one I worked on.
  • Fixed as suggested. Regarding the lack of endorsement, it's something that is listed on the archived olympic site here. But I wouldn't go as far as listing it on other articles unless the IOC state specifically somewhere that they don't recognize the table as a ranking system.
  • The links to the IOC's website are all dead. Would switching the deadurl=no parameter to yes get the WebCite links to be the main ones in those citations, so I'm not clicking on a dead link when I hit the first avaliable link to check a fact? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry to take a dump in the punch bowl, but I have now read both the List and Article versions of the 1908 Olys. Both are short. I think much better to combine the two and make the best "larticle" you can, not worrying about classification. Then run it through whatever process makes sense. Probably here (they are more liberal and will put up with a lot of prose in their list, as opposed to fancy shmancy article people and the converse). Other than that, it looked clean. Much prettier than the Campaigns of Suleiman. I guess a little thing, but "front and back" or "obverse and reverse", no? I really think you should combine the list and article. Found myself wanting more prose in this thing. And heck, how much list is really here? A medal table? I think Sandy would take that fine at the bottom of an article (we have aerospace articles with tables that dense at the the end.) but here is fine too. But I think the artifical split is a waste when we have a short article and...a table. Sorry...totally heart love of the topic. not love of star-collecting though.TCO (reviews needed) 06:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue of server space but of different pages or same pages. The advantage of same page is compare and contrast and ease of navigation. Advantage of separate pages has to do with topics that have grown over long or are very different. However in this case we have two articles (the nominal list and nominal article) that are both very short and very similar. I honestly think the reader is better served by combination. HAve the best table in the article and the best prose in the list. And that means combine. And if it gets unGodly long, split. But you are not there, yet!TCO (reviews needed) 06:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that there isn't enough room to place every medal table on every main Olympic article. The issue arises when you realise that you have 1908 Summer Olympics, 1908 Summer Olympics medal table, Bids for the 1908 Summer Olympics, List of 1908 Summer Olympics medal winners and then all the little nations at the 1908 Olympics articles. For every single Olympics there are a set of these and its become standard practice to split them all up in this way. Miyagawa (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say that I disagree with the opposition in this instance. It's not like the main article has three lines of text and then the top-10 table. To me this is a valid split from the main article. It would be questionable if this was a 10- or 11-item list, but 19 is just enough that I don't think this is a 3b violation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was not meant to be procedural. Just looking at the the articles, the article article and the list article, there is a big overlap of content and both are "short". I honestly think that from a reader standpoint (nothing to do with "rules") that benefit is made from merging. The 1908 Olys are a mystery to the modern reader. More than a century ago. Splitting what little content we have...is not helping.TCO (reviews needed) 19:11, 12 July 2011 (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/1908_Summer_Olympics_medal_table/archive1&oldid=1138478502"