Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of camoufleurs/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:06, 17 January 2013 [1].
List of camoufleurs edit
List of camoufleurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the people who developed military camouflage in the two world wars were a varied and interesting mixture of artists and scientists, and who contributed in surprising ways to their countries' war efforts. The topic of camouflage is far more than the designs on military uniforms, and the work of the early camoufleurs spans a wide range of deception and disguise including André Mare's observation trees and Norman Wilkinson's dazzle camouflage for ships. Artists showed leadership, too, with both Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola (a pastel painter) in the First World War, and Geoffrey Barkas (a film-maker) in the Second World War, moving from their civilian lives to effective and creative command. The list introduces, organizes and gives access to the biographies of these men, and helps to relate them to other camouflage articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Few quick comments
5 paragraphs is too many per WP:LEAD, need to trim it down it a bit-- Done.I think it the people could be represented in a list as oppose to bullet points, unless there is a specific reason they are in bullets.-- Done.
NapHit (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- We don't have a "camofleur" article, so perhaps this should be it?
- Nice of you, but that would be a lot more detailed than 4 paragraphs.
- Then I imagine we should. Why have a list of X when we don't have an article about X? Start with linking camoufleur (wartime) and then we can decide if this is a 3b violation! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I follow you here? We have a list of Xs, with a bluelinked and reffed article on each X, isn't that right for a list? And there are articles on e.g. Military camouflage already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, an analogy I would find simple. Why have "List of moths" if we don't have an article about Moth? (cf. List of camofleurs vs Camofleur). Particularly when the majority of the content of the list would constitute the bulk of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, yes, I could work on it. Does that affect us here now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my take is either (a) there's not enough on camofleur to make it a standalone article, so expand this list accordingly or (b) camofleur needs its own article, in which case, if it does, can it genuinely hold this list separately from the main article (under our 3b criterion). So I think yes, it does affect this nomination from the point of view that we don't know what a main "camofleur" article would contain, so we don't know if this is just an easy spin-off list or a viable standalone list..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can put together something on Camoufleur (wartime); it will not consist of anything listlike (any more than Moth is listlike, but will be a cited account of the kind of work they did, how they related to the military and to the art world, and what they achieved. It will certainly mention de Scevola and Barkas, though not all the others, who properly belong in a list. There's no "easy spin-off" about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my take is either (a) there's not enough on camofleur to make it a standalone article, so expand this list accordingly or (b) camofleur needs its own article, in which case, if it does, can it genuinely hold this list separately from the main article (under our 3b criterion). So I think yes, it does affect this nomination from the point of view that we don't know what a main "camofleur" article would contain, so we don't know if this is just an easy spin-off list or a viable standalone list..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, yes, I could work on it. Does that affect us here now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, an analogy I would find simple. Why have "List of moths" if we don't have an article about Moth? (cf. List of camofleurs vs Camofleur). Particularly when the majority of the content of the list would constitute the bulk of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I follow you here? We have a list of Xs, with a bluelinked and reffed article on each X, isn't that right for a list? And there are articles on e.g. Military camouflage already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I imagine we should. Why have a list of X when we don't have an article about X? Start with linking camoufleur (wartime) and then we can decide if this is a 3b violation! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice of you, but that would be a lot more detailed than 4 paragraphs.
Well, (last comment before bed), all I'm saying is that it's odd we have "List of X" without an "X article existing. You're now saying there's enough for an "X" article. All I'm now saying is that perhaps this list shouldn't stand alone once you have the "X" article written (i.e. you can merge the list back into the article). But we don't know that until the article exists. I'm not sure how much value there is in pursuing this list of X when X doesn't exist, since you've made it plain it's not the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Good morning.) All this talk of merging back to the future article is hurting my head... I note that lists are deprecated in e.g. 'good articles', so the plan is certainly to have both, one day. Clearly we must stop this FLC now, but the obvious plan is to grow the article into 'Camoufleur' and then hive off the list when ready. It would be helpful, though, to know (my talk page rather than here...) why you're so keen on merging so I can allay those fears in slow time. Sorry to take up your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Good evening)... you wouldn't necessarily need to deprecate a list into a GA as long as the main article could standalone as a GA. But if you could just confirm that you're happy for me archive this nomination for the time being, I'll do so, and if you like, we can continue any discussion relating to this at my or your talk page. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Good morning.) All this talk of merging back to the future article is hurting my head... I note that lists are deprecated in e.g. 'good articles', so the plan is certainly to have both, one day. Clearly we must stop this FLC now, but the obvious plan is to grow the article into 'Camoufleur' and then hive off the list when ready. It would be helpful, though, to know (my talk page rather than here...) why you're so keen on merging so I can allay those fears in slow time. Sorry to take up your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I thought I'd done that. Yes go ahead. My talk page please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't nip the dates column up so much, makes the list unnecessarily long.
- See WP:YEAR for year ranges which are in the same century.
- Don't overcapitalise, e.g. "First World War Camoufleurs" -> "First World War camoufleurs" in the table caption.
- "... April 1942. Illustration by Brian Robb" in the image caption, needs a full stop.
- Maybe me, but "is used by extension of all" I would expect that to be "is used by extension to all"....
- Have to assume good faith with seemingly OR text such as " may well have chosen"...
- "At least one Air Force officer" make it explicit it's the Royal Air Force.
- Not sure why "Surrealist" needs to be capitalised. Check other "genres".
- Be consistent with page range format, you have e.g., "54–56." but "1337–143, " and then "152–4.".
- Ref 40 has double full stop.
- Ref 42 needs to be correctly formatted.
- Where are the ISBNs for the bibliography?
- Have tried to address all these comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.