Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom/archive3

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 19:42, 20 December 2007.

List of cathedrals in the United Kingdom[edit]

Issues raised in previous FLC attempts have been addressed. --JohnArmagh 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC

Oppose I'm sorry but I cannot support at this time. There are many issues that I have with this list. I still think this list is very thorough and is does give a lot of information but:

I very much dislike the fact that there are over 100 photos on this list. To me this is more of a gallery than a list, the images overpower what a list really is: a series of information grouped together in a set sequence.
I also dislike the fact that this list is huge, yet it really shouldn't be. There is not enough information listed here that this list should be this long! This also causes a huge amount of white space (most of this list is white space), which makes it hard to read the info. Again, I think this goes back to the images which cause a lot of problems on this page. So I say again, this is a list, not a gallery.
I think the intro is long enough that it deserves some in-line citations. The intro itself could serve as a very solid stub, maybe a start.
Not that it is a must, but it would be nice to have one or two on-line sources, so information can be more easily verified.
The "Records" section seems arbitrary, it really doesn't add much to the list, and would be better if it would be placed in a "Notes" section using <ref> tags.
What is the point to linking to maps for some of the cathedrals? Again doesn't serve a huge purpose, and simply using the map site in an external references, stating that this can be used for finding the location of the cathedral would be way better suited. Remember, Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
All the Navboxes at the bottom are very distracting and probably should be autocollapsed so it doesnt take up so much room.
There are a lot of red-links, most of these should be filled if at all possible.
What is the point to linking to a lot of the cathedrals websites? This seems like advertising and Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Imagine if this was an article and all these urls were under the "External links" section, it would be huge.

Overall I think the main problem is doing too much. The list seems to be usefulness, complete, accurate, and mostly neutral but it fails in the style style and prose departments. Sometimes less is more, and maybe taking some of the better photos and using them as illustrations along the side of the list would be better than compiling 100+ photos on one page. This is my honest opinion but I cannot support this list at this time.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The List of Popes has a large number of images. It is an established Featured List. If there is a number of images which constitutes a gallery rather than a list, who is to set it? on what basis? and what quantity? 50? 40? 30? 31? 32?
Subjective evaluation. The purpose of a list is to provide structured format, classification (reflected in the Table of Contents) and searchability, which is provided by Ctrl+F. The actual information contained against each subject is only intended as a brief overview. The detailed information is provided in the actual articles.
The intro was only included in the first place because it the list was previously opposed because of the lack of a cohesive intro.
I am ambivolent about the Records section. Although I created most of the entries it was only because the section was created by someone else and contained a single entry, which was more trivia than anything else. Rather than delete the section by someone who had good intentions I decided to expand it.
Wikipedia may not be a travel guide, however the map locations are not intended for that purpose. Firstly they provide reference that amount to a citation of the item as well as showing geographical location (it is more informative in less space than saying "on the corner of such-and-such, between such-and-such and such-and-such in suchtown, suchshire, suchcountry (which for people who do not know the area means nothing). For an item of this type (i.e. geographically fixed) geographical location is relevant information.
The red links are awaiting articles. They do not detract from the relevance of the information on the list.
Linking to the websites is no more than what is provided in articles under the References Sections, External Links or citations. They link to sources of verification. Any source of verification could potentially be construed as advertising. The point of the list is that it is a list, not an article. So the issue of the number of external references is mitigated by the list format, i.e. it does not present a single huge list of External Links - each link is against the item listed.

At the end of the day I am not really bothered. The effort of repeatedly going through the process of resubmitting an article, then re-editing it to address the issues (aired by very few members of the wikipedia community, and some subjective in nature, and others contradictory), whilst other editors are making their own edits, is not particularly fruitful. I am contented that largely through my work on the original List of Popes, that is one article which has received Featured List status, and I didn't go through the process of submitting it myself. I merely considered that as this list was on the same basic structure and format of that, that this might attain the same status. I won't be losing any sleep ower it. --JohnArmagh (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, but lets go with it. First off, the photos in List of Popes do not overpower the list whatsoever, as there are only a small fraction that have photos and the amount of info provided is the centerpiece, while the photos serve to farther the info. When I look at this list, the first thing that my attention is drawn to is all the photos, and not the list itself.
The huge amount of photos combined with the small amount of info provided causes a lot of white space. Sometimes this has to be, but here I think the photos would be better served if you picked some of the best and placed them alongside the table instead of inside the table. (See List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A)
Still stands, I didn't say I had any problem with the intro, I just said that placing a couple of in-line citations would help.
I still stand by my comments about the records section, I think the info is fine, it just could be formatted better by placing it inside the table using ref tags.
Im assuming that all the maps are from the same site? If so then why not just have one link that points the reader to the site so if they need to see the location on a map, then they can go and easily find it?
The red-links are far from being that important to me, it was just a suggestion to improve the list.
I still stand by my comments about the ext links, I would have to take an educated guess that you could navigate to each cathedrals article page and find the exact same links. I would have to also guess that very few people are going to search for multiple cathedrals websites, instead they would probably look for one or maybe two, where they could easily navigate between the articles (this is the purpose of a list, to navigate through articles)
Another biggie for me is that it seems the list is still going through major changes (the adding of colored background and changing the table format, which personally I think looks worse) which means that the list is not "Stable," one of the criteria for inclusion in FL.

You shouldnt mind, because I am commenting of the content and not the contributor, these are my honest opinions and if you don't want peoples honest opinions then dont go to WP:PR, WP:FL, or any other place like that. I think the subject matter and the info are great, I just dislike how the list is presented and the format that it has taken. I hope you keep on working on this list and remember that more isnt always better, sometimes a straightforward list is better than a complicated, over-the-top list. Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I did take it upon myself to increase the image size, on the basis that the smaller images seemed to be too minute to show any real detail, even though they are essentially only thumbnails. I could reduce them again if preferable. I do think that a comprehensive list of buildings is better served by thumbnails to each structure, if only to enable easy access to larger images of the individual site. Otherwise one is left repeatedly clicking or searching on the off-chance that an image exists. Here it can be seen that it does. And it can also be seen where there is no available image in Wikipedia - or at the very least that if there is one, it has not been linked to as yet.
The map links are all to Wikimapia. As I had to create several of the places on that resource myself in order for them to be searchable I thought it would be beneficial to indicate them on the list - especially where it could be done without overwhelming the page with link URLs. If people don't like it then it can be removed - though I think it would be to the detriment of the basic information content.
I agree with your comment on the changing format, unstable state and the look of the changes. They weren't there when the nomination was made.

I have not got an issue with honest opinions. And I know the opinions are based on the contribution rather than the contributor (though that has been the case over the years), who is not in any case beyond criticism. I am all for the page being improved, and have no problem with contributing to this end - though I am sure we all have plenty of other things which need to be attended to outside the Wikipedia universe. My only concern was that after addressing the issues, more issues are going to arise. And they only arise upon re-nominating the work. And there is the danger that an oposition may contradict a previous oposition. So it is probably best not to nominate the work again. --JohnArmagh (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 Support, 1 Oppose, 15 Days, No Active Discussion, Faied -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.