Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Anuran families/archive2

List of Anuran families edit

This was nominated last week, and didn't get through because of lack of votes. You can see the nomination here. All the problems brought up in the last nomination have been resolved. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This list is very informative.--Tnarg 12345 01:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with above. Nice layout too. Sotakeit 11:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. G.H e 01:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice. Froggydarb 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - this is looking very good. Will it be possible to find images of example species for the few unillustrated families? There also seem to be quite a few redlinked species, given that most of them are illustrated... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given time, I am sure we will be able to fill it up (except for the purple frog). The remaining families are either rare, or are in a country which does not have much Wikipedia activity. I have been trying very hard to get photos. --liquidGhoul 23:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got rid of some red links by changing the example species for some families without photos, and changed one photo to do the same. Thanks --liquidGhoul 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Support. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I will definatly support this nomination, it is very east to find a species etc and creative too. Enlil Ninlil 07:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would it be possible to include the details of who described each family, and when? TheGrappler 23:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Great. Query: do these scientists' names work like they do for botanists? "Goin and Goin" seems odd, since I know that for botanists (with IPNI) the author abbreviation is unique. TheGrappler 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pepsidrinka 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support. I really don't like the thought of a featured list missing so many pictures and having so many red links. The red links are the main problem, as it means that it fails the "A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)." requirement. Create stubs for the red links and perhaps ask around on some other sites if they'll let you use some images. If you can get all of the links to blue status, then I'll change to support.--SeizureDog 19:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is about the Anuran families, and all the families are blue links. That rule is for the components of the list, and the examples are not part of it. I will try and begin some of those articles, but I cannot do it now as I won't be near a computer for the next couple days. If you would notice, I actually expanded every family in this list so that it was no longer a stub (if it wasn't already large enough). I believe that is more important use of my time than making the list look better by making useless stub length articles about the example species. --liquidGhoul 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that expanding the families is more important, I still feel the use of red links detracts from the article. A simple line or two along with an infobox for the five example species you have left isn't much to ask (I'll ignore the discoverer names as they're small not as noteable).--SeizureDog 23:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started with them. I think I have done two now, and User:Froggydarb has done one. --liquidGhoul 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to go ahead and change to support. I'm sure those red links will be filled soon enough.--SeizureDog 08:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could we rethink this policy about red-links? I think it should not be strictly enforced. A list can be useful and comprehensive while having red links. Red links say that there is a missing article and that often inspires someone to write the article. A quickly written stub turns the link to blue, but it probably slows down the process of having a real article written. I went through the same concerns when I nominated List of largest suspension bridges, which failed until I created dozens of useless stubs which had no more information than what could be found in the list. Now, anyone who sees the list thinks all the articles have been written. What has been gained? Red links have value. -- Samuel Wantman 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, that is why I expanded all the family articles, and none of the species articles I have created for this list are stub sized. Stubs are useless, if you create an article, at least put some work into it. Forcing people to create stubs does not make a better encyclopaedia. --liquidGhoul 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there was such a thing as a "Good List" then I would say the red link policy would be unneeded. However, since it is a Featured List, I think the requirements should be tough. Also, this perticular list is rather short. It's not as if we're asking for hundreds of red links to be filled as in the case of List of North American birds. There's no rush to get the list to Featured status, it should wait until it looks nice. And to me, red links aren't nice. Also, I rather pefer stubs to nothing at all. --SeizureDog 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine List of North American birds with EVERY link in red. It would still be a great list and worthy of featured status. All the information would be exactly the same. I can also imagine a featured article that is brilliantly written, yet every link in red. "Red links aren't nice"? Why? Red links inspire people to write articles. Stubs delude readers into complacency. -- Samuel Wantman 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that not allowing red links is also a deterent for people wishing to make lists. If I put a lot of work into something, I would like a little appreciation. I was considering writing a List of Australian amphibians (or frogs, same thing) article, but the idea of creating such a large list, putting hours of work into it, and making it comprehensive in the information it provides (as I was planning on doing) would be useless if it is lost in the millions of articles in Wikipedia. It could be an incredibly useful list, but it wouldn't gain featured status because it is impossible to create more than 200 articles when only three people on Wikipedia are dedicated to Australian frogs. Forget that someone spent hours working to help make Wikipedia more useful, they need to spend the next few weeks in front of the computer creating useless stubs. I am sure there are tonnes of subjects out there which would greatly benefit from a list (even if it is full of red links), but people aren't willing to create them because there is no chance of it ever becoming featured. Look at all the biology related featured lists, they are all American bird subjects, because birds are one of the most popular animals, and Americans are the majority of English editors. Wikipedia is not about favouring the majority... --liquidGhoul 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you get rid of the rule for links to not be red then you make it too easy to become a featured list. I'm sure there's probably somewhere where you can just copy and paste a list of a certain grouping of animals, and because its just names, it would not be a copyright violation. Making lists is easy. Making lists useful is hard. Alos, quite frankly, I would want to expand more on a stub than a red link. A stub shows that is someone other than yourself is at least interested enough on the subject to work on it, and that you're not the only person you're writing information for. And any time I actually make an article for a red link, it's hardly more than a stub. To me, red links just say "no one cares", and its hard to be inspirited to write much of anything on them.--SeizureDog 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Shouldn't this page be moved to Anura? Even if it includes a list, the page is actually an article for the order. Lists are generally sub-pages for a main article, but in this case the list is the main article. Therefore I move to rename it to reflect the order. --SeizureDog 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose to renaming The article for the order Anura is frog. This is a sub-article of the frog article, as a much poorer version of this list was once within the article. I really don't see where you got that from. --liquidGhoul 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I clicked a link for Anura and it redirected me to List of Anuran families. That's where I got confused. In that case, I move to change the redirect of Anura to Frog.--SeizureDog 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --liquidGhoul 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But I will prefer that the example of species should be links to existing articles. As the case here is very much flexible (any example would do), this should be possible. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with this is that existing articles may not have photos therefore there would be no image in the box next to the example species link. Froggydarb 12:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I a few cases, there are not even any species articles to link to. Circeus 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support Circeus 12:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are very few red-links now. Rmhermen 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]