Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Robot Hall of Fame/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Robot Hall of Fame edit

Robot Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I discovered it in a good state thanks to the great work of Holiday56 a few years back, and suggested we co-nom because it's an interesting list and a niche topic. It's been brought up to current standards (that didn't take much) and looks good to go as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - TRM, are you aware that currently you have two nominations (apart from this one)? —Vensatry (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, no outstanding comments, support on them both, and this one is a co-nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, one cannot run more than two nominations (main) at the same time in FLCs. As for this list, you are the main nominator. —Vensatry (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR and no, Holiday56 is the main nominator here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, you and I both know that Walter Lawrence Trophy (with four supports) is simply waiting for someone to promote it. Sadly, this kind of opening dialogue curtails commentary, so I'd be grateful if you would move it to the talk page or elsewhere to allow this nom a clean slate once you're ok with it being live. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm not hellbent on it. Just wanted to point out. —Vensatry (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you have. Now can we move on to the list itself? Perhaps you could collapse your comments to prevent people being dissuaded from reviewing? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you could do it by yourself. I don't mind. —Vensatry (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:Hi Holiday56 and TRM, please find my comments below:
  • Lead:
  • The Robot Hall of Fame is an American hall of fame fix link to List of halls and walks of fame
  • Can an infobox be added?
  • I don't see any obvious benefit in that really, most other HoF articles (including FLs) don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The obvious question to me that remains outstanding, and which I see has been asked on the talk page, is why has there no more inductees since 2012?
  • It's a little like trying to prove a negative, I don't know, there doesn't seem to be any obvious answer, at least not that I can find. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table:
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ianblair23 thanks, comments addressed and/or responded to inline. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Harrias talk
  • I mean, I'll be honest, I'm disappointed not to see Chaos 2 or Razer in there...
  • "..were selected by a selected panel of jurists.." – not keen on the repetition of "selected".

Other than that, there is little to fault, so to be honest, I'm happy to support. Harrias talk 14:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks, I've replaced the first "selected" with "chosen" so that's nice. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw This is an interesting list on a topic I know very little about.

  • I had to think about the meaning of "existent" in "both existent and fictional". Would "real" be an alternative term?
    Yes, I don't see why not, so I've swapped per your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image File:Robot 501585 fh000026.jpg seems to have two different CC licences (one specific to France) - I have not seen this before and I'm not expert enough to know whether that is OK.
    I think it should be one or the other personally, but since they're both CC, it's not an issue to use the image here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we were supposed to add "+" & give a title per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Tables but I'm not sure if that is a requirement.
    Yes, we often do, especially if it's not directly following a section heading (as in this case) but it does little harm and adds benefit to our ACCESS-readers, so I've added one. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Lucas is credited as creator of the Star Wars franchise, but didn't Ralph McQuarrie get credit for a lot of the design work?
    That's most certainly true, but the information here is following the citations provided by the HoF website which only mentions Lucas in each case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those queries, I'm finding it difficult to raise any issues.— Rod talk 18:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodw, thanks for getting the time to do this, much appreciated. I've responded to your comments inline above. Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses & edits. I can now Support this lst as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rodw. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008, PresN, here's another off the production line, needs a source review I think but otherwise good to go? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit odd that the lead talks about the 2012 rules change as if it's an on-going affair, when in fact that was the only year like that and no robots have been entered into the Hall in the 5 years since. Can you find a way to work into it that 2012 is the latest year to add robots? --PresN 01:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PresN fair point, I've adjusted the tense a little and added a note regarding the last entry being 2012. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 17:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.
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/Robot_Hall_of_Fame/archive1&oldid=1138488782"