Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 07:27, 1 December 2010 [1].
List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners edit
List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Strange Passerby, Courcelles, Hebrides, Nergaal, WikiProject Olympics
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a list that does not meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria of inline citations. While it does include a well cited stub quality article (the lead), the list is uncited though it does contain general references see Just the the list without the lead. A request to add incline citations to the article was reverted. The list content seems to have been taken by copy and paste from existing small articles with no validation. While this article might be a good canidate for Wikipedia:Featured Stubs if the un-cited content was removed, it does not meet the criteria for a featured list. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for background reading on an already lengthy discussion on this, please see this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per the instructions, "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates)". This was promoted 15 days ago. Courcelles 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this may be mildly off-topic, but the tone of the nomination leaves a little to be desired and really seems to lack any good faith. Having worked with dozens of great contributors at WP:FLC, I'd like to clarify that no-one is trying to dupe the community, and pointed remarks such as "this article might be a good canidate (sic) for Wikipedia:Featured Stubs" is most unhelpful. I'd like to think that we can resolve this issue to the benefit of the community as a whole, rather than making some diligent editors feel like crap. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question does this version cover the problem as it now has "in-line citations"? Or would the nominator rather have that comment (i.e. ".. medal winners shown below.[11][12]") in every subsection as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Facts should be validated and referenced to the actual sources used to support the content. For instance when I search for "Speed skating" in the 1936 winter games, there are no results on olympic.org [2] though searching for "Max Stiepl" and Bronze [3], does find support for his entry, so if olympic.org is the validation source then unique reference for every entry would be appropriate. Attempts to fully open the PDF book constantly fail for me, so it is not possible for me to validate any entries through that source. If the German language book was actually used to validate the content then page numbers should be available, and should be used at what ever level is appropriate to document the validation, this could be a page range for a section or may need more detail depending on the book format. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm sure you know, some of these "modern" websites don't provide unique URLs and so instruction on how to validate using a search page is generally considered sufficient to find what you're looking for. I would think that website alone would be enough. However, the PDF, admittedly in German, is available. Perhaps your internet connection is inadequate, I just downloaded it fine. However, that reference isn't used to reference the medallists, it's used as a general reference for the prose. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I managed something quite cool, a complete list from the Olympic website with a URL. Try this. Hopefully it loads for you and would address the problem using my suggestion? I've updated my experimental attempt here... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Query of olympic.org looks pretty good, I searched around the other supporting pages and on Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics found a different link to the German book, it is about half the size and opens for me, I used it to reference the table on Speed skating at the 1936 Winter Olympics [4]. I was able to include the page number as the format in the book is much the same as the list table. I looked around gBooks and don't find another good source so the German book and olympic.org appear to be the only two source easily available on line. I would reference each table with both sources (using page numbers for the book, and your link for the web page), I would also add the references to the tables on the main article that the tables came from as a courtesy. You might choose a different citation format then I used ( I usually only add a single reference as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles), the choice is yours. This would provide two fairly specific references to each table, one that is not web page dependent, and one that is provides easy online verification. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, now we have every fact verifiable through an inline citation, I can't see any existing problems with your initial objection. The other suggestions, while possibly useful, should not lead to the delisting of the FL. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Query of olympic.org looks pretty good, I searched around the other supporting pages and on Bobsleigh at the 1936 Winter Olympics found a different link to the German book, it is about half the size and opens for me, I used it to reference the table on Speed skating at the 1936 Winter Olympics [4]. I was able to include the page number as the format in the book is much the same as the list table. I looked around gBooks and don't find another good source so the German book and olympic.org appear to be the only two source easily available on line. I would reference each table with both sources (using page numbers for the book, and your link for the web page), I would also add the references to the tables on the main article that the tables came from as a courtesy. You might choose a different citation format then I used ( I usually only add a single reference as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles), the choice is yours. This would provide two fairly specific references to each table, one that is not web page dependent, and one that is provides easy online verification. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Facts should be validated and referenced to the actual sources used to support the content. For instance when I search for "Speed skating" in the 1936 winter games, there are no results on olympic.org [2] though searching for "Max Stiepl" and Bronze [3], does find support for his entry, so if olympic.org is the validation source then unique reference for every entry would be appropriate. Attempts to fully open the PDF book constantly fail for me, so it is not possible for me to validate any entries through that source. If the German language book was actually used to validate the content then page numbers should be available, and should be used at what ever level is appropriate to document the validation, this could be a page range for a section or may need more detail depending on the book format. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, way to be WP:BITEy to a new contributor to FLC. The nominator failed to raise any objection at the FLC, then did not approach either me or Courcelles with his issues before unilaterally tagging the article sections he thought had problems. There is a big lack of good faith from the nominator here. Do not delist per clear approval at FLC where this supposed problem was never an issue. StrPby (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the top of the FLRC page doesn't it say "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted" Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, indeed. But I get the feeling we'd just be delaying the inevitable here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep – Part of this is from the procedural end, since I believe letting a list go to FLRC 2 weeks after its promotion sets a bad precedent for the future. However, I also didn't think the general references were problematic to begin with; now that they've been incorporated in-line, I don't see how a demotion would have any merit. My one recommendation is to combine the three seperate citations to the complete list from the Olympic website, which should be easy to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.