Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cardinal-nephews/archive2

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 promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [1].

List of cardinal-nephews[edit]

Nominator(s): Savidan, CarlosPn
Toolbox

This list is the counterpart to the featured article Cardinal-nephew. It is useful for assessing the frequency of the practice over its history and the variation therein. All the image are free. The first nomination failed as a result of the redlinks, but the relevant language has been removed since the criteria were modified last year. User:CarlosPn has also contributed substantially to this list. Savidan 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - dashes between years should be endashes—Chris! ct 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. One day I'll learn the difference... Savidan 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Kumioko

Comments Just a couple things that I recommend

  • I think that the cells that have nothing in them should have a centered emdash.
  • In the notes column you have everything marked as a reference but there are some that I think should be notes instead of references (like when you mention that they went on to become a pope)
  • I think that some of your references (such as 2,4 and 11) would be more appropriate as notes rather than as references. If you need an exampleof what I mean by a note take a look at what I did on this article(please excuse the semi-inappropriate irony)--Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the reference notes from the footnotes as you suggest. I have added "Unknown" instead of a dash to the blank cells, because I believe that a dash implies "N/A", which would not accurately represent the situation. As for your second comment, I am somewhat baffled. The notes column contains notes (such as whether someone become pope) as notes not as references. The references are also in this column because it seems poor form to create a new column for them when the notes column is already unused on 90% of the entries. Could you be more specific about what you are suggesting? Savidan 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks much better thanks. Regarding your question you already took care of it so nevermind I wasn't explaining it very well. I noticed a couple more things also.
  • refs 11 & 12, are exactly the same except the Maleczek, p. 111 part. I recommend you combine them and make Maleczek, p. 111 a seperate ref.
  • refs 35 & 36 are exactly the same and I recommend you combine them
  • refs 72 & 73 are exactly the same and I recommend you combine them--Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done as you suggest. Savidan 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comment Check the toolbox to your right; there's a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that earlier. The only "dead" link is to uncle. Unfortunately, the disambiguation page really is the best link in this case, as Wikipedia doesn't really have an article about uncles... Savidan 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to the dead external links. For "uncle", it's totally up to you, but do you think it's worth linking? I'm sure most readers know what an uncle is, and per WP:OVERLINK, we shouldn't be linking common terms. Alternatively, you could use a wiktionary link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed both. Savidan 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "including every Renaissance pope." I'm being dense here, but does this refer to popes who presided (hope that's the right word) during the Renaissance? Also, the Renaissance was more of an era than an exact period of time, so you might denote it as such: "Rennaisance-era pope".
  • "other creatures include" What do you mean by creatures? Footnote, wikilink or wiktionary link would help here.
  • "Charles Borromeo, one of only two canonized cardinal-nephews"
  • Latin words and abbreviations should be italicized. I saw "circa" and "c.f.", but there may be more.
  • Just out of interest, what is your next project. Are these papal lists part of a future featured topic? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented your changes. As for a featured topic, I don't know what the third article would be. Maybe List of Cardinal Nephews, but that list would have barely more than the minimum 10 entries. If you're interested, I'm also working on User:Savidan/Economic history of the Holy See and the redlinks in List of papal elections. Savidan 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The usage of pictures as symbols is not compliant with WP:ACCESS; see this discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text added. Savidan 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm referring to the images, not the symbols. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the two images without captions, not the others, which are pretty clear. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(discussion) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added alt text. It's news to me that a caption is not sufficient alt text. Savidan 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I do not have visual impairments that force me to need a screen reader when I browse, I cannot answer for that. However, I do think it helps. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Should CarlosPn be considered a co-nominator? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CarlosPn is certainly a co-author, having added dozens of cardinals and sources to this list, and I have notified him of this nomination. He informed me that he was preoccupied with external cardinals at the moment, and I think that I will likely have to take the lead on any remaining comments/objections. Savidan 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Savidan 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent List and Images. KensplanetTC 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose
    • The footnotes should be capable of taking correctly formated references. See WP:FOOT for advice on referencing footnotes using the #tag device.
    • "sixteen", "eighteen" - MOSNUM -> 16, 18.
    • Not sure if we should use bold text for the cardinal-nephew column names. Check with WP:MOS#BOLD.
    • "...of the Cardinal Nephew are denoted..." that seems to wikilink to a part of the article that doesn't exist for me.
    • A pity the column widths from tale to table aren't the same.
    • Per WP:MOS#Images we should avoid forcing images to sizes other than those described by thumb and upright.
    • "unprecedent five cardinal" - unprecedented?
    • Urban VI and Boniface IX appear to share same dates.
    • What does published 8 November 1430 mean? Could this etc. be footnotes?
    • Francesco Piccolomini has a blank cell for relationship.
    • Grandnephew or Grand-nephew?
    • "Scipione Borghese Caffarelli†" and "Francesco Maidalchini†" have no notes. Does this imply they are not cited by any of the references used here?
    • It may be useful to know what languages your various References are.
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your thorough review of the article. In many ways, I appreciate your meticulous oppose far more than a support vote. I have implemented most of your changes already. I have also asked CarlosPn to add the language information about the non-English references. It is unclear to me how to remedy three of your comments (and two of them are interrelated). First, would you mind being a little more specific about what you want me to do with the footnotes in reference to your first comment. Second, are you actually experiencing problems with the table width/image size? I experimented with the formatting in a variety of ways, and this was the only way I have found so far to get the images on the right of the table without seeing images overlap with tables or tables of different display widths. I would appreciate it if you could refer me to a list that accomplishes this within the parameters of the guidelines you have linked. Savidan 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. To be more specific about the footnotes, have a look at John Wark and his [nb 1] etc markup. These are footnotes which have references like normal citations, as opposed to the weblinks being added directly in the middle of the footnote as you have in, say, footnote 4 - "... electronic [1] [2] [3] do not mention his cardinalate ..." - those [1] [2] [3] are hyperlinks and should instead be referenced at the end of the sentence to regular references. I hope that's clearer? I'm no expert, I learned this method just recently. Second, no problems with widths, image sizes, just that it would be more aesthetically pleasing for tables containing the same information from section to section to have the same column widths. As for image sizes, I simply drew your attention to the manual of style to which we should be doing our best to adhere, so not forcing image sizes away from thumb/upright. It's not a spectacular failing, and I would be loathe to continue to oppose based upon that alone, but its easily solved. If you remove all the 150px etc from the landscape images and replace the 150px stuff with just upright to the portrait ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. One solution to the table columns is to remove the sections you have in place and keep the list as a single table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the images to upright, and--to my knowledge--all of the tables have each column as "200". Am I missing something here? I am hesitant to combine to the the sections into one large table, however, as that would reduce the navigability of the list. Taking another look at the footnotes you refer to, I am now leaning towards removing from the list all claims that a source "does not mention" a certain cardinal, and including such notes only when sources actively disagree. However, I will wait until CarlosPn has a chance to weigh in on this. Savidan 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite using tables a lot, I'm no expert on markup - have you tried setting them to "200px"? or "20%"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well 200px didn't work. Can I just clarify, when you look at the tables, do you agree that the col widths of 11th, 12th, 18th and 19th century tables are different from the 13th to 17th century tables? I see the same thing in Firefox (I'm using Safari, by the way). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Safari and they all appear to be the same width to me, both in page view and the source. Savidan 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Safari 4.0.1 and Firefox 3.0.3 (behind the times) on Mac OS X. Wonder what IE7 will make of it... If it's just me then we can safely ignore it I suppose! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to change the formatting of the tables to increase compatibility with all browsers, if you can suggest a means other than combining them into one large table. Savidan 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also having problems with these tables and images overlapping (on Firefox). What I can see is File:List of cardinal-nephews FLC problem.png. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've sorted my problem, it was caused by a couple of curly quotation marks where straight ones should have been. Is everything still okay for you Savidan, and has this fixed your problem TRM? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed for me, great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I think the problem must have originated from my copying and pasting from Word. Savidan 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update on the original comments. The references within the notes and the foreign language refs have been mended. Please let me know if you have any outstanding comments. Savidan 20:14, 7 July 2009 (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_cardinal-nephews/archive2&oldid=1143899182"