Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation/archive1
- 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 The Rambling Man 16:42, 16 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
Another list relating to international hockey, enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Why are New Zealand and Norway in the same cell? Error or intentional?
- For some strange reasons, both Men's and Women's Ranking columns only sort correctly for the first time.
—Chris! ct 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any error with the New Zealand or Norway cells, they both look fine to me. I fixed the sortability. -- Scorpion0422 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see the error, but the wikicode seems correct. So I don't know. Purging the page doesn't help either.—Chris! ct 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer a problem; probably it is just a bug—Chris! ct 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, I'll support.—Chris! ct 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No longer a problem; probably it is just a bug—Chris! ct 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see the error, but the wikicode seems correct. So I don't know. Purging the page doesn't help either.—Chris! ct 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Otherwise, good work, boss! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
Support – I'm not overly concerned about the primary sources, and everything else appears to be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Update: I have fixed the hyphens, and I have switched the bolded links in the table to italics (note that it's a template, so you may need to purge to see the change). -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
- Lead
- 'It is based in Zurich, Switzerland and maintains the international ice hockey rulebook, processes international player transfers, and dictates officiating guidelines and is responsible for the management of international ice hockey tournaments.' --> The 'and' in 'and dictates officiating' should be removed because the 'and' between 'guidelines' and 'is responsible' do not relate to each other
- Done.
- 'The IIHF was created on May 15, 1908 under the name Ligue Internationale de Hockey sur Glace (LHG).[1]' - Maybe explain what language this is in?
- Can the language which the name was originally in not be noted?--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, missed that. It's in French. I'll add it.
- List
- Whats the point of gray links? I don't really see it well in the explanation you gave above.
- The gray links are in there to make it easier to differentiate between active teams and non-active teams. otherwise, it's hard to pick out (especially with italics) and it looks messier.
- Oh, I see now. Can you denote that in the key or something?--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll add something to the key.
- One more question, what does it mean "they participated in that event"? What does 'that event' refer to?--Truco 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that that team was active in 2009 (so, the Croatian men's national participated in the 2009 tournament, but the inline team did not). -- Scorpion0422 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I understand that but in the key "did not participate in that event in 2009", like what is "that event" referring to in general?--Truco 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to fix it. -- Scorpion0422 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- Can you add a source that is not from the IIHF itself? --Truco 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything specific that you think requires a non-IIHF source? Thanks for taking a look. Good to have you back. -- Scorpion0422 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't find the guideline but there was a guideline that stated that refs should not come from 1 source, but I can't find it. Is there anything that can just be replaced by 1 non-IIHF ref? If not, its ok. Also, thanks! It's great to be back, but it's taking awhile to catch up with all these noms =P--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that guideline is meant more for articles than lists. As this is non-controversial info, and any source would be based on the IIHF list anyway, I think it is acceptable. However, I will see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Crzycheetah 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Late comer to the discussion, and I could frankly care less about the grey links, but I think there are two compromises that will work: A. do something similar to what Cheetah suggests, drop the gray, turn into redlinks, but add an asterisk or ref label note to mark those teams which did not participate to add more emphasis than just the italics, which frankly given the size of the text is hard to see. B. Ignore MOS:Bold - it seems to be written with prose articles in mind rather than lists, banning bolding to avoid confusion with its use to identify article topics, which is not a confusion likely to happen if the bolding is inside a table. It's a risk that KV or someone else may then oppose, but I'd chalk it up as being bold. No pun intended.
- A couple other comments too that don't rise to the level of opposition. First, at some point you should make a version of the map that is usable by people with color blindness. Second, there are far too many redlinks here. You should fill some of them in. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you aren't opposing over it, but I just want to clarify that red links aren't justification for opposition. See WP:RED. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the map myself, and my map making skills are very limited, so I just used the most obvious colours I could. What would be the best ones to use? As for redlinks, I will try to create some more stubs for the national federations. Also, I would be willing to go back to using bold, and then removing the gray. Crzycheetah, would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion0422 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The organizations for all of the full members now have small, crappy, stub pages. -- Scorpion0422 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the map, I wasn't thinking of completely changing it, I like the one you have. But because it's so useful, I think Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles comes into play. What I've seen on other lists in the past is the creation of a version with different contrasts to help the color-blind, linked to from the thumb caption underneath the main map. Just can't find an example of it right now. As I said, not a reason to oppose, but maybe a good diea for future article improvement. Geraldk (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, bold would be better.--Crzycheetah 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, switched back to bold and removed the gray. Personally, I think it looks worse without the gray, but oh well. -- Scorpion0422 02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thank you!--Crzycheetah 04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, switched back to bold and removed the gray. Personally, I think it looks worse without the gray, but oh well. -- Scorpion0422 02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, bold would be better.--Crzycheetah 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the map, I wasn't thinking of completely changing it, I like the one you have. But because it's so useful, I think Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles comes into play. What I've seen on other lists in the past is the creation of a version with different contrasts to help the color-blind, linked to from the thumb caption underneath the main map. Just can't find an example of it right now. As I said, not a reason to oppose, but maybe a good diea for future article improvement. Geraldk (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The organizations for all of the full members now have small, crappy, stub pages. -- Scorpion0422 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question - How many of those redlinks can actually become valid articles? If the articles cannot be turned into notable articles, could you please delink them? Thanks. NW (Talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that there will never be an article for any of the under-18 teams and a majority of the non-full member teams will never have pages either, but if you start selectively delinking, it causes confusion. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find! Much better now.--Crzycheetah 02:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure that there will never be an article for any of the under-18 teams and a majority of the non-full member teams will never have pages either, but if you start selectively delinking, it causes confusion. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Would still want to know how the membership transfers from one to another. Do they do this formally, or do they just list it, without media attention? Ehh...I Support. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Finally got around to reviewing this article, but something sticks out for me. In regards to the national federations, some are listed in English (Iceland, Hungary, etc) while other are listed in their respective official languages (Germany, France, etc). I'm going to assume this is because the IIHF lists them as such, but perhaps some consistency would be appropriate for the article? Maybe keep them all in English, which is logical, or find their official name in whatever language used, which could be an issue for countries that use a different alphabet (Russia, China, Thailand). Other than that, the list looks great. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed some of them, but I haven't been able to find English translations for all of them. Do you know of any sites that might be of use? -- Scorpion0422 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through and translated most of the ones left. However, my knowledge of Spanish is non-existant, so there are only 3 left (Mexico, Spain, and Macau (Written in Portuguese, not Spanish)). So if someone who knows Spanish is available, then it should all be cleared up. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed some of them, but I haven't been able to find English translations for all of them. Do you know of any sites that might be of use? -- Scorpion0422 02:53, 16 June 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.