Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O)/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 promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [1].
Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O) edit
Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
My current nomination has two supports after 22 open days and no outstanding issues. This is the next in the series of Phillies lists; comments to be expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the policy on red links in FLs? Ideally there should not be any IMHO but what's the FL rule? PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links are acceptable (many of the other lists in this series have them). The criteria in question state that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing... a complete set of items" and that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". When this series of lists is considered as a whole, the proportion of redlinks is quite low. That said, once the FLCs are through and this (hopefully) passes FT, I will be using these lists as a link farm with the eventual goal of having all Phillies players with articles. I have ensured in the course of these nominations that the leads of each list have no redlinks by creating a number of player articles (see my recent DYKs). So there's no rush, and with only three redlinks, this is just fine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Personally I haven't put any redlinks in the two lists I've been working on, so that'll just be my personal rule. I also use only free images in them. Give me a little more time to look this over but at a glance it looks quite good. PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links are acceptable (many of the other lists in this series have them). The criteria in question state that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing... a complete set of items" and that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". When this series of lists is considered as a whole, the proportion of redlinks is quite low. That said, once the FLCs are through and this (hopefully) passes FT, I will be using these lists as a link farm with the eventual goal of having all Phillies players with articles. I have ensured in the course of these nominations that the leads of each list have no redlinks by creating a number of player articles (see my recent DYKs). So there's no rush, and with only three redlinks, this is just fine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I compared this to the FL Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A) as a starter for review and with the excuse that I'm pretty new at this, I can't find anything wrong here. Nice work. The only suggestion is to make the tables sections so that you don't have to open the whole article in edit mode to edit the tables. PumpkinSky talk 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the FLC for the "A" list, which was right at the time when the current ACCESS requirements were being implemented for the first time, the section headers were deemed unnecessary because they are duplicates of the table captions. The edit functionality is something I miss too but it's fine the way it is. — KV5 • Talk • 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greasy's caption: "as an American football layer " missing a p, although I suppose we'll have plenty of those in the next list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Su--ort. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to gripe about. Courcelles 18:30, 25 August 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.