Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers stadiums/archive1

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The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers stadiums

Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers stadiums/archive1

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Packers list for your consideration. Thanks for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe in QPQ at FLC. I will review 3 noms for every one I nominate (1, 2, 3). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per criterion 3b: This "largely duplicate[s] material from another article, and could...reasonably be included as part of a related article." The prose in this article is about the same length and replicates the same information as Green Bay Packers#Stadium history and the bottom of the infobox. There aren't many FLs where the lead is twice the size as the list itself, and the table could more than easily fit there in the main article or alternatively History of the Green Bay Packers. This is also duplicative of Chronology of home stadiums for current National Football League teams, and you could link to an anchor at the Packers' section of that; no other team appears to have an article just for stadiums because it isn't needed. Reywas92^Talk 06:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree Reywas92. I think you bring up a good point, however I think the issue is more with Green Bay Packers article than this list. I think there is undue weight on the Packers stadiums in the Green Bay Packers article. As an example, there is about the same amount of text in that section as there is in the history section for the first 40 years of the team's history!

I would also point you to these two discussions that brought up similar points: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers and Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame/archive1. Both of these discussions came to the conclusion that WP:SUMMARYSTYLE was a good reason for breaking these types of lists out of the main team article (which in the Packers case is currently a huge, rambling mess). The Pro Football Hall of Fame discussion is especially relevant to this discussion. Lastly, just because no other team has a stadium list, doesn't mean the Packers shouldn't (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). A lot of this comes from the fact that the Packers have played in the most home stadiums in NFL history and have an iconic facility right now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it would be undue weight to have a simple eight-item table in main page; you're welcome to expand the early history in the summary there. The history of stadiums played in is part of the team's history overall, so if you don't want this taking up space in the main article, put it in a History of the Green Bay Packers#Stadiums. Lambeau being iconic has no bearing on the previous stadiums and if anything diminishes the fields with just one and three games played in each. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. We break off sections of larger articles into separate articles once the topic is large enough. I am stating that there currently is too much text in Green Bay Packers (there isn't a table currently) and thus deserves its own article so that Green Bay Packers can be better summarized. Literally every sports related list could be included in the team's main page, but then it would be too long. Did you look at the other discussions that I provided? As an example, seasons are part of the team's history, but we have separate lists showing seasonal results because it is a unique item of interest that is discussed as a group. This topic is in the exact same boat. I would be happy to summarize the Green Bay Packers#Stadium history section to something that better reflects our WP:SUMMARY guideline. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 Do you have any resolvable comments to improve the list? If not, based on your concerns, it would seem the next logical choice would be for you to WP:AFD it. If, per AFD, it meets all the criteria in WP:STANDALONE and is kept, than criterion 3b would seem to no longer be an issue. I would not be opposed to this route, or bringing this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates to resolve. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well my point is that this is really not something so long that it needs to be split off! Or it can be included in an article that has already been split off! The list of seasons or even hall of famers are absolutely not comparable, they are substantially longer. I do not believe it should be deleted, it should be merged. I have been criticized in the past for AFDing an article that really could have been merged because of course the content should be kept, just not on a separate, duplicate page. Just because an article is sourced and has notable enough contents that the contents should be kept at AFD (like the retired numbers article) does not necessarily mean it should be on a separate article. If I should start a merge discussion, should I propose targeting it to the main article or the history article or either? If anything should be summarized better in the main article, it should be the recent history, which doesn't need separate subsections for most years since 1996, or even the playoff record, which itself is redundant to the following Championships section. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007, the FLC instructions state that "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". As you already had an existing FLC which as yet hasn't attracted any comments at all, you really shouldn't have nominated this one. I respectfully suggest that you withdraw this one (or the other one - your choice) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Withdrawn per ChrisTheDude. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.