Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of the Linguistic Society of America/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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of presidents of the Linguistic Society of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While not the kind of list I feel is typically here, I think it merits inclusion as a featured list. In its 90+ years of existance, the Linguistic Society of America has had a number of presidents who are and were some of the foremost linguists in the field. While a rather humble list-lacking in tables, sorting, and much more than a picture, it is comprehensive of all presidents, is structured reasonably, stable, and is up to my taste for style. I think it falls well within the FL criteria and hope you agree. Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
- Quite a plane list of people with years. Isn't there anything at all to write about the topic? Like maybe some controversial selections of presidents, controversies created while in chair (if related to the chair), someone opting out of presidency, their duties, eligibility criteria and maybe more. Also, if its just a plane list with no other information, why is it a standalone list and not merged into Linguistic Society of America? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment, and sorry it took so long to get back to you. I know it's a rather unassuming list. The reason it is standalone is because of the size of it, which is why it was spun out in the first place. Because of the length (and that it will grow annually), it would dominate the article. I have not come across any sources on controversies. I did add in more information on succession. While I recognize it's not as interesting as many other lists here, I still believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Do you have further thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A ~4kB list in ~30kB article isn't really that big. Plus the readable prose on main article is only ~13kB. WP:SIZERULE does not justify this split. If you are saying the list would look very long in the main article, there is always an option to collapse in table format. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment, and sorry it took so long to get back to you. I know it's a rather unassuming list. The reason it is standalone is because of the size of it, which is why it was spun out in the first place. Because of the length (and that it will grow annually), it would dominate the article. I have not come across any sources on controversies. I did add in more information on succession. While I recognize it's not as interesting as many other lists here, I still believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Do you have further thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open over 2 months without a lot of support, so I'm going to have to close it. I'm also not very convinced that it is not a WP:CFORK, especially with no other information than a bare list of names. --PresN 03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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.