Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rain or Shine Elasto Painters draft history/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 Matthewedwards 01:42, 10 May 2009 [1].
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets the FL criteria (heh). One bad thing may ne that it has too few entries I dunno if that'll affect this nomination. –Howard the Duck 12:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Quick-fail
- I'm afraid being to short does affect the nomination. We usually require a minimum of 10 items in a list, apart from in exceptional circumstances. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So does that mean I'd have to wait for at most 2 more years to re-nom? If shortness was disregarded, would this pass? –Howard the Duck 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'm sorry you will have to wait. We had to come up with a limit to prevent lists like this from becoming featured. As for whether it would pass if length was not a consideration, I'm not a director so could say for definite, but after a couple of prose sweeps I think it would do fairly well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recently, the FL criteria was revised. One of the changes was the explicit provision against content forks. This fails that criterion (3b). One could easily merge the table into the main article without introducing unnecessary detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think pages such as draft history can stand in their own in articles such as this. We do this for the NBA and NFL, no reason to exclude this one. –Howard the Duck 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that regardless of 3b, this would have failed even before the criteria was revised. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? –Howard the Duck 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for being to short. The opening sentence of WP:FL? has said a variation of "A featured list exemplifies our very best work" since the beginning. It is considered that very short lists don't do this. I'm not just picking on this list, others have failed for being to short (e.g. This "list" was not promoted for being too short back in August 2008). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I remember one FLC of some African country where there were like only 4 presidents and it failed. Any more objections besides the length? What else has to be worked upon? I know length seems to be important here but I want to know if this can still be an FL if it is disregarded. –Howard the Duck 11:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for being to short. The opening sentence of WP:FL? has said a variation of "A featured list exemplifies our very best work" since the beginning. It is considered that very short lists don't do this. I'm not just picking on this list, others have failed for being to short (e.g. This "list" was not promoted for being too short back in August 2008). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? –Howard the Duck 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth noting that regardless of 3b, this would have failed even before the criteria was revised. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think pages such as draft history can stand in their own in articles such as this. We do this for the NBA and NFL, no reason to exclude this one. –Howard the Duck 10:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Recently, the FL criteria was revised. One of the changes was the explicit provision against content forks. This fails that criterion (3b). One could easily merge the table into the main article without introducing unnecessary detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'm sorry you will have to wait. We had to come up with a limit to prevent lists like this from becoming featured. As for whether it would pass if length was not a consideration, I'm not a director so could say for definite, but after a couple of prose sweeps I think it would do fairly well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to make a convincing argument as to why a 6-item list does exemplify Wikipedia's very best work for that to be disregarded. If you can't, instead of using the FLC process to receive input on how to improve it, I suggest withdrawing this nomination and taking it to WP:Peer review instead. Personally, I think it should be merged into Rain or Shine Elasto Painters. It can always be pulled out into it's own article in a few years' time. There is no deadline. See also WP:CFORK, WP:SAL, and WP:EMBED. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought of merging that a long time ago, but if we'd do that for every Philippine Basketball Association team article, the team article would've been really long already, only this franchise has a relatively short article since they're the youngest of the bunch. If follow the philosophy if it applies to one, it applies to all. Nevertheless at most in 2 years' time this can be FLCed again. –Howard the Duck 10:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nevertheless at most in 2 years' time this can be FLCed again." -- Are you asking to withdraw the nomination? I don't want to have misinterpreted you, and just want to make sure that's what you mean before I close it by accident and have to reopen it. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll wait for an oppose for a reason other than "not enough content" if that's possible. –Howard the Duck 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nevertheless at most in 2 years' time this can be FLCed again." -- Are you asking to withdraw the nomination? I don't want to have misinterpreted you, and just want to make sure that's what you mean before I close it by accident and have to reopen it. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 07:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't mean for this to look like a plie-on oppose, but with no activity the last few days, I feel it's safe to make my position clear. There is simply not enough content to justify calling this list our best work, as Rambo said above. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 3 May 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.