Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Archbishops of Vancouver/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 NapHit 14:01, 27 October 2012 [1].

List of Archbishops of Vancouver[edit]

List of Archbishops of Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally decided to nominate a non-baseball list for once. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly and meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous embedded list in the Archdiocese article was unsourced and contained only the incumbent's name and tenure in years. Since this list contains more details about every archbishop (e.g. the "Notes" section and the lead), I think this merits to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but only eleven entries. I don't think this would be UNDUE in the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in this FLC I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually would have supported that one as there was no good place to merge it. This one... if consensus is that this is solid enough to stand on its own, look for a fuller review from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. And thank you for expressing support for the 20–20–20 club list. I tried to get it passed, but too many users thought it failed criteria 3b (and then gave ridiculous ideas of where to merge it into). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if we want this to be a really useful standalone list, then let's talk about the Archbishops. I want to see more info in their notes, not just "appointed" and "resigned" which effectively is already in the From and Until columns. Specifically:

  • "He is in charge of looking after..." reads a little colloquially, "He is responsible for ..."?
  • You could link Archbishop of Vancouver in the lead.
  • Unfortunately, there's no separate article for that. Only this list specifically covers the subject in question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why " Vicariate Apostolic " is capitalised?
  • It's a proper title, the ranked lower than a "Diocese of..." or an "Archdiocese of..." —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems odd that Vancouver is linked only midway through the second para of the lead.
  • Done. Linked at the very first sentence. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then linked twice.
  • "present" messes the sorting up.
  • Sorry, but I'm not sure what I should do with this. Should I remove the sorting, or replace "present" with another term (could you suggest a word?). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's just that using text in a column which you expect to sort by number is problematic. "present" is fine, but it needs to sort later than any other year in chronological order... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:YEAR for format of year ranges within a century.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "He" in second sentence should be "the person", perhaps
  • I think "He" is better as it is more specific (and more appropriate, since the position can only be held by a male). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It states "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words". Since this number only entails one word, I prefer the word format (IMO it is more formal). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "List of Ordinaries" header is a violation of MOS:CAPS, ordinaries should be in capitals
  • The word "Ordinaries" is already in capitals. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reasoning for the color of the table, should it even be there, what's the reasoning. Looks a lot like a WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR violation, but not really much of color
  • "Ref(s)" is missing period dot at end
  • Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order

TBrandley 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I hate to do this, as the list otherwise is a worthy candidate. However, in my opinion the list clearly fits into the scope of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver article. If you can whirlwind around and bring out more context and size, I am more than willing to reconsider. Given sufficient size, a list of archbishops is inherently within range of the bronze star. Arsenikk (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request for withdrawal – already 2 oppose votes, both which say I should expand the list. However, there really isn't much I can add further to it, since all the bios of archbishops are in the individual articles linked. Given these circumstances, I would like to kindly request the withdrawal of this FLC. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Archbishops_of_Vancouver/archive1&oldid=1138481106"