Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of S.H.E awards/archive2
- 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 User:The Rambling Man 16:20, 18 August 2008 [1].
List of S.H.E awards edit
previous FLC (06:56, 4 August 2008)
Just because other Chinese-literate editors can't be found to verify the sources is, in my opinion, a stupid reason for this FLC to fail. Not to mention unfair. This is in spite of the fact that (a) each award is cited, (b) it is a comprehensive list. Yes, I feel gipped, and thus renominating this bad boy.
Because I'm intent on getting this FLC promoted, I've offered Chinese-illiterate reviewers a guide to verify if, in fact, the awards are saying what they're saying. If you really are adamant on seeing if these things are saying what they're saying, you can Ctrl+F each of the character groupings; the word "S.H.E" also shouldn't be too hard to find (thank goodness their name's in English, eh). Use the Simplified Chinese column first. Pandacomics (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
| Simplified Chinese | Traditional Chinese | English translation |
|---|---|---|
| 团体 | 團體 | group |
| 组合 | 組合 | group |
| 最受欢迎 | 最受歡迎 | most popular |
| 奖名单 | 獎名單 | awards list |
| 入围 | 入圍 | nominated |
| 候选 | 候選 | candidate |
| 曲 | song | |
| 港台 | 港臺 | Hong Kong/Taiwan |
| 亞洲 | Asia | |
| 女子 | girl | |
| 十 | 10 | |
| 二十 | 20 | |
If a particular cite needs translation, I will gladly give you more keywords. All keywords in the above table can be verified on Yellowbridge. Pandacomics (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you're renominating the list but saying things like non-English sources are "... a stupid reason for this FLC to fail. Not to mention unfair..." won't help at all. Please see WP:VUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen it, actually. But the reality is as follows:
- Fact: English-language media tend to follow English-language artists.
- Fact: English-language media cover mostly English-language awards shows.
- Implication: English-language media aren't going to cover awards shows in Hungary. Or China. Or Papua New Guinea.
- 2nd implication: This means Hungarian awards are going to be found mostly in Hungarian media.
- Fact: English-language sources are preferred on Wikipedia.
- Fact: Not everyone can read Hungarian.
- Fact: List of S.H.E awards was rejected only because people couldn't read the language. Presumably, this sets a precedent that prevents lists on Hungarian artists from being promoted (for example).
- Conclusion: If people can't read Hungarian, and refuse to accept Hungarian sources even if they happen to be the only reliable sources that exist for Hungarian artists, this means that no list on a Hungarian artist will ever be promoted.
- 2nd conclusion: This is a prime example of systemic bias, which is precisely what Wikipedia is trying to counter. Pandacomics (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: The fact I am offering you a Chinese-English correspondence table gives you the opportunity to verify the information yourself. If you want me to give 126 translations for each award, I will gladly give you 126 translations if that means this list will be promoted. Pandacomics (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen, I'm not getting personal but independent verification counts for something. I gratefully accept your offer but the community has to do so too. In your translation we trust... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking over the previous FAC, I don't think this failed due to Chinese sources. That was only mentioned once, AFAICT, and nobody opposed. I don't believe there's been any consensus that non-English sources are unacceptable. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Twice, actually. Rambling Man brought it up, as did Matthewedwards; among the concerns that were mentioned, it was the only one that wasn't addressed. There was one support, but the fact it resulted in a non-promotion likely meant that the unaddressed concern was one of (if not the only) the reasons why. Pandacomics (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm either stupid or unfair for not supporting at the previous FLC. Here are some more reasons why a promotion would have been premature.
- I don't remember seeing this before, but don't force the BOLDTITLE if one can't easily be made. If it has to be broken up by 8 wikilinks / plain text, I'd say it was forced.
- Well, originally it was "This is a comprehensive list of...", for which Rambling Man didn't really show much fondness. You had also expressed a reasonable concern with the Taiwanese girl group problem, which is why that was broken up. Pandacomics (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I did. But if a bold title doesn't appear naturally, you don't have to force it. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The footnote
doesn't seem to apply to a group that didn't form until 2001From the first year this award was given out until 2008, some or all nomination lists are not disclosed. If an award was given out before 2001, nomination lists are only counted from 2001 onward.
- Well, the intended meaning was "if they handed out awards before 2001, we're only going to count from 2001 onward. And if from 2001 onwards, we can't find a nominations list, we'll place an asterisk next to the nominations number in the infobox." Pandacomics (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:CS, "Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided." This also extends to four column lists.
- From the previous FLC, Rambling Man suggested, "I'd prefer to see the references in a ref col because they look really untidy next to the year - they're no more relevant to the year than any other part of the row, so creating a column for them isn't all bad." That's why there are four columns now. The three-column diff is here. The refs are tied directly to the years, but when multiple refs are attached to a year, it seemed a bit awkward, so that's why I didn't mind going with Rambling Man's suggestion. Pandacomics (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he was referring to their placement being "in-line", rather than in their own column in the table. I'm referring to the ==References== section. reflist-2 is the max. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VUE says English language sources should be used "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality", if they can't then they're allowed. However, it goes on to say "Where editors use a non-English source... quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article". While it is more desirable to have a translation provided by a reliable source, it does not disallow translations made by a Wikipedian. {{cite web}} has a
quote=field, so it should be used.
Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment do you intend to use the
quotefield in these references? No work appears to have been done on the list for the last couple of days... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, that's odd. I thought I posted it; must've only previewed it. I was going to ask, if I'm to use the quote field, do you want just the translation, the original text, or both the original text and the translation? Because if I'm going to copy and paste it 126 times.... Pandacomics (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I'd prefer both, but it's not entirely up to me. Let's see what others think. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm completely fine with the non-English references. So here's two other things I'd like to mention: the bolding in the lead sentence is awkward and unnecessary. Also, why is the Other awards section formatted in such a funky way? I see no reason for it to look different than the rest. Drewcifer (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer it to be unbolded? Or is it more a request to reword? The "Other awards" section is formatted as such because the table (if formatted per the other sections) would make the article longer and more unwieldly than it already is. Pandacomics (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.