Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight

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 09:45, 11 February 2008.

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight[edit]

Following on from the good work of Rudget on SSSIs in Greater London I present this list for your delectation. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ (see below). I don't think "United Kingdom" is necessary after "England". Conversely, try to find somewhere in the lead to mention where the Isle of Wight is, for the benefit of non-UK readers. Also, now that table sorting is fairly configurable (see Help:Sorting), you could make the Name, Hectares, Acres and Year columns sortable. Colin°^Talk 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done your first two suggestions. I will look into the third. I presume it require the list to be in one single table rather than split into three? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot that. Yes, you would. It isn't a huge table, so breaking into chunks isn't essential. Colin°^Talk 08:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to make this type of tables sortable because of "rowspans" and "colspans" in the heading. --Crzy cheetah 08:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember trying this on previous lists and having that very problem in that the headers get moved about. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My only concern with this list is that there far too many SSSIs not linked at all. They basically were redlinks, but you decided to delink them, instead, in order to avoid the ever-popular comment - too many redlinks. As is, this list doesn't bring "together a group of existing articles".--Crzy cheetah 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn. I'm a bit rusty at this FLC thing. Didn't spot that. Yes, about 2/3 blue-links would be better. And quite a few of those linked-articles are just one or two lines long (ignoring all the template/refs stuff). If you can expand some to a paragraph (or better still, add a photo -- it isn't a big place and there must be a WP editor who lives there surely). I know the linked-articles aren't part of the criteria, but I'm very reluctant to support a list of stub-stubs as being "Wikipedia's best". Colin°^Talk 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the early lists of SSSIs nominated had all blue links (see Avon, Wiltshire, Cleveland lists etc). However the London list, which was the last one to be nominated, had many of the links removed, so I followed that format. I will try to create some of the articles, probably the most important ones first. I would also point out that lists do not have to contain "a group of existing articles" - there are two other criteria. However I presume consensus is that SSSIs are notable enough for their own article.Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the sentence "Natural England, like its predecessor, uses the 1974-1996 county system,[5] and as such the same approach is followed here, and for other counties which can be found at List of SSSIs by Area of Search" really necessary? If so, you might explain why that usage is significant. (And I think you can remove the "...for other counties which can be found..." part of the sentence regardless.) Also, can you update the listing of sites in the reference section so that all the sites are listed in the same font size? Right now, the top entry in each column is larger than the rest. And yes, I realize the format has probably been copied from another list—which means that one should probably be corrected too! : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your copy-edit! The importance of the 1974-1996 system is that it lists SSSIs in areas which technically no longer exist such as Avon and Cleveland. The sentence therefore justifies, why what could be considered as unorthodox, is in fact the most appropriate way of listing SSSIs. Obviously this is less of an issue for the Isle of Wight which does still exist! If you prefer for the comment to be removed that would be fine. I have removed the second half of the sentence referring to other lists following your suggestion. As for the references I don't think I follow. For me atleast, the names Alverston Marshes, Cridmore Bog and Parkhurst Forrest are the same size as the other links underneath them. Is this what you meant? Thanks Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the reply. I think that in this case (since there is no issue with the Isle of Wight county no longer existing) the sentence actually makes this more rather than less confusing. I'd recommend removing it! And you might think about moving the last sentence in the first paragraph (which indicates how many SSSIs were named for biological reasons, etc.) to the end of the second paragraph. Otherwise, it's coming before the detailing of the various categories. Otherwise, it's looking good! Support MeegsC | Talk 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have removed the sentence. Also moved the sentence you suggested, which certainly makes the intro flow better. Cheers. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems a bit strange to split the table alphabetically, then not offer a table of contents to easily navigate. I suppose this was done to make it easier to maintain but it just comes across as strange, when we've shown on other lists that there's no problem with large tables. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this completely and have restored the table of content. Circeus (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I agree the table of content makes sense. Were you saying you would prefer not to have the contents but have the list in one single table? Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, actually, there's no problem with a large list. If each letter were 30+ entries that might make sense, but they aren't. --Golbez (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess you may have noticed, but the list is now in a single table. - Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I agree the table is not necessarily long enough to require a split, I wouldn't oppose over it. Circeus (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Is there a reason that it says "Reason for Designation"? Another minor thing – in the lead you write four as "4", and I'm not sure where it is, but the maxim is that numbers under ten are written out longhand. At least I think so. As far as the issue on redlinks and stubs goes, I don't think it affects the comprehensiveness of this article itself. The more the merrier in relation to it, but three quarters of them are bluelinked, and I expect you'll fill in more over time. Likewise, I'm neutral with regards to the table splitting. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for spotting that D - also changed the I to i in interest. Yes I have read about numbers under 10 being written out longhand. Even if its not a guideline its probably good practice so have changed it. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks better than when I first glanced at it a few days back. Good work. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.