Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1951 Asian Games medal table/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 Giants2008 19:09, 24 May 2011 [1].

1951 Asian Games medal table

Featured list candidates/1951 Asian Games medal table/archive1

Nominator(s): Bill william compton^Talk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a my second nomination for FL which is again of Asian Games related medal table [first one is still in process]. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me, thanks. --Bill william compton^Talk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the list and accompanying prose are too short in content to appropriately designate this as "featured". I've previously been advised of an unwritten but generally accepted lower limit of 10 items. Str Pby (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment, but I didn't find any such thing on FLC; that there should be at least 10 items on list, moreover, this is a medal table, static in nature, which I can't change; if you've any better idea to expand it then please tell me. I'd agree on prose, but I don't know what else to add here. I could try to add more information, but that would be either irrelevant or should be covered within a main article. Denying this list for featured status because it contain less number of items would be gratuitous. --Bill william compton^Talk 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier discussion where this came up was here. Since you agree that the prose is lacking, I will formally oppose based on criterion 3(b) of WP:WIAFL, specifically "In length and/or topic, it ... could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." In this case, given what little there is here, I would say there is no argument for a stand-alone medal table article. This is not an oppose based on the number of items in the list, but the fact that both the list and accompanying description would easily (and "reasonably") be included in the 1951 Asian Games article without needing to be split out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how it could be possible that any article of list class could never be good enough to be a featured part of an encyclopedia. If you think that prose need more work then in spite of directly opposing it you may mention it as your concern and I could work on that and I'll try my best to make it fit for 3(b) of FLC. Also shouldn't be a main thrust of the process (nomination) is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria and if you've noticed after your first comment I've already started working on prose. If 1896 Summer Olympics medal table could be a featured list then why not this one. So, please make comments and ask for changes, but don't just oppose it because you think it can never be a stand alone list; give me some time to resolve your comment. --Bill william compton^Talk 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a 3b oppose is based on the belief that the article should not be a part of the encyclopaedia, at least as its own article. Courcelles 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (strictly here as a reviewer, not a director)

It is a little short and it could be integrated back into the 1951 Asian Games article. It is certainly not your fault the parent article is very poor and I'm certain you created the list in good faith.
However, focusing on the subject matter, i.e. the medal winners, perhaps you could expand it to include content about the winners of the medals.
Otherwise you will have trouble convincing people this shouldn't just be integrated into the parent article I'm afraid. And then you'd need to head to WP:GAN or WP:FAC I'm afraid.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is possible [in between a nomination procedure] then please give me a time of one week, this is my exams time and can't do much research on this topic. As much as I aware of, this list has some potential for FL status and I'm trying very hard to improve the status of Asian Games related articles on Wikipedia, which is worst as compare to Olympics (this is just a healthy comparison for my personal motivation), thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no major rush. You only nominated a few days back, typically this won't be archived (unless we get some serious opposition) for a couple of weeks. Get stuck in, and let us know if you need our help. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even on my tight schedule I've worked on article, please take a look there and recommend more changes, thanks. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but now there's so little in the main article that isn't in the list (in fact, the list is far superior to the article), perhaps it's worth considering merging the list and article, but still keeping a FLC perspective. It may be that this is only going to be suitable at WP:GAN though. Perhaps we need to see what others think. Good work so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to express it in your guidance of focusing more on the subject matter with medalists. Do I need to add more about the individual athletes? and if still superiority of list over the main articles is an obstacle then I can improve the main article too, give me just two or three days and I'll bring it up to at least B-class status and may be will nominate for GA or FA. Please don't compare it with the main article, just consider it a "stand alone list". I've no problem in working extra, just like I created 15 new articles before the PR and nomination of 1982 Asian Games medal table. This is first Asian Games medal table and I want from my heart to especially see it as FL. As I earlier mentioned, we also have 1896 Summer Olympics medal table as FL, then why not this one? what else I need to make it fit for FL? — Bill william compton^Talk 21:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a good job, don't get me wrong, but the reason it's different from the 1896 medal table is that the main article for the 1896 games is huge and a featured article so creating a medal table list was quite permissible under the 3b criterion. This list is actually much better and bigger than the main article, so there's a reasonable argument that it should be merged into the main article. Of course, this is simply my opinion, perhaps we should wait to see what others think? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to revisit my oppose from above. Despite the very commendable efforts of BWC, I still do not think this a viable stand alone list, especially given the very disappointing state of the parent article. I find myself in agreement with TRM. As merging this list back to its parent would improve the quality of the latter and not lead us to lose valuable content, I am not currently persuaded to change my 3b oppose. Sorry. Str Pby (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. You first opposed it for not following a 3(b) criteria which you still think it doesn't satisfy as the state of parent article is very poor, but if I improve the parent article would you again consider your opposition? because I don't wanna to loose this nomination just because the parent article's state is not satisfactory, I'll finish my work within two days. — Bill william compton^Talk 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with merging this information back there, working on that article itself and then going to GAN/FAC with it? It'd be more productive that way. My point is not that the main article is lousy, but that this list can and should be merged back into the main article. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I agree with StPy, it's not intended to discourage you for what you've done, but I think your best bet now is to merge this info back into the main article and then head to GAN possibly i.e. make one article out of the two, the main one "1951 Asian Games", and see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with StPy and TRM. If the parent article is going to be improved with the information used in the lead here, then there's no good reason for this page to exist, considering the list itself is given in its entirety in the main article. I just don't see how 3b can possibly be met by this list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of optimistic by nature, that's why I was waiting to answer, now my work on article has almost finished, I'm ready to make my point. First I'd like to answer StrPby— In your second last comment, you said by yourself "very disappointing state of the parent article", now you're saying that your"point is not that the main article is lousy", I'm puzzled which point you're trying to make; also there is nothing wrong in merging this article with its parent one, but in this way there is also nothing wrong in merging all those featured medal tables with their parent articles and can I kindly ask you to give some special features of 1896 Summer Olympics medal table or of 2010 Winter Olympics medal table, that they are eligible for featured status, but not this one.

Rambling Man— I'm kind of confused about the objections arising here. As according to your second last comment, you weren't in favor of this because this list was much better and bigger than the main article, but now as I said, current article is also in good shape (see the difference — current and before), then what else do I need here?.

Giants2008— The parent article is not just improved by using information used in the lead of the article of concern. I know it was kind of reverse procedure that medal table was improved first than the parent article, but if you'll see now, the information used here is only the summary of whole parent article, which is the same trend we use in other medal table lists. We also have 2000 Summer Olympics medal table, in which lead is just the 5 line summary of 2000 Summer Olympics and has one other section of Changes in medal standings which is again extracted from 2000 Summer Olympics#medal table, but this list and many of like it are of featured status and here we've only differences that the concerned list (the actual medal table) is not big, which I can't change and the article is not of Olympics. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this list and 2000 Summer Olympics medal table is that the 2000 list has 80 entries. The main article has the top 10 nations and leaves the rest for the list. There's plenty of content in the list that isn't in the main article, and an 80-entry list is too much for the main article to comfortably handle (meaning the balance would be thrown off). Although the 2010 list is more moderate in size, the same is true. In this list, there's nothing in the table that isn't comfortably included in the main article; in fact, the tables are the same in both. It doesn't matter that the number of items can't change, or that this isn't an Olympic list. There are some lists that can never be featured, often due to size, and I think you unknowingly picked one of them to work on. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pick it up "unknowingly", I chose this one particularly because — 1) If you'll see my edit history I'm working exhaustively on Asian Games related articles to improve their status, which is extremely poor and this is a list of very first Asian Games, which makes it a full candidate for my special attention 2) I had an example of 1896 Summer Olympics medal table, which also has some 11 entries but still has featured status.

Policy that tables shouldn't be same on both the articles is applicable on 1896 Olympics because parent article doesn't have any medal table but a little description of top medalist nations and medals. So in this way it shouldn't be wrong if I apply same here, is it? because, now the parent article is also in good shape, so that removing a list from it won't make it look odd, also I have sufficient material to add there. I'm not stubborn that I've sticked on it that this list should be a featured one, but I'm still not finding a good reason to deny it, however, 1896 medal table is featured one, also if it was any arts related award list then I'd never even nominate it, but this is a medal table, which would never be change. I respect my colleagues, specially those who are much senior to me (of course, in terms of working experience) and if you still think that I'm not giving a valid point then I'd withdraw this nomination by myself, thanks for giving your valuable time here. — Bill william compton^Talk 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you happy, then you can go and send the 1896 table to WP:FLRC. But I must suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. X is an FL, so Y must be too is a silly argument. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a tough break I think. You've done an excellent job on the main article, but there's really little justification (in my opinion) on carving out just the medal table for a possible FL. There's just not enough there to warrant an independent page at this time. I sympathise with your feelings about the 1896 list, but as StPby says, it's not a reasonable justification to say that's an FL so this one should be too. Standards have changed considerably since that particular list was promoted and I feel it would be dealt with similarly to this one. I know it's not what you want to hear, but right now I'd be tempted to move back to the main 1951 article which you've expanded drastically and head to FAC with it. And let me know when get there so I can help you with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw – I formally withdraw this list from featured list's candidateship. I shouldn't have compared it with the 1896 Olympics list in the very first place. I apologize for my irrational conduct and wasting precious time of other users. Pardonne-moi — Bill william compton^Talk 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Bill, your work on this list and the main article has been fantastic, and the last thing I want to see is you feeling discouraged by this outcome. But as I said, your four-fold expansion of the main article means nominating it at FAC is a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rambling Man for recognizing my work, I'll let you know when this article becomes ready for FAC and I think I'll need your help on this, merci encore. — Bill william compton^Talk 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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