Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of the 100 wealthiest people/archive1
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 21:33, 15 April 2008.
List of the 100 wealthiest people[edit]
This list is based off of List of billionaires (2007), a list I submitted that became WP:FL a few weeks ago. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I delinked the word "billionaire" in the enboldened part of the lead, but apart from that, it's very similar to List of billionaires (2007). Congrats (once again!) on your hard work. PeterSymonds | talk 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportIt's been a long road, but the article's looking very nice! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Since it seems I'm in the minority (see below), I'll just withdraw my vote. For my own piece of mind, however, I'd still like to bring up the topic at WP:RS or something like that, but for now I'll let the cards fall as they may for this FLC. I'll try and keep everyone posted. Drewcifer (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic has been brought up here, so feel free to take a look and chime in. Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Oppose For the reasons listed above (below). A list that is a direct transcription of information from a single source is unnecessary and largely unhelpful. As it stands, a single External link would accomplish just as much as the entire list. Drewcifer (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment The # column doesn't sort. That, and I don't think a column should be named by a symbol. Drewcifer (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:It sorts for me. Plus, the column is small, so a whole word would widen the cells unnecessarily. The symbol # is widely known as a number, but that's just my humble opinion. [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]]|[[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>talk</small>]] 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake about the sorting thing. But I do still think the column shouldn't be a symbol. Howabout "No."? As in Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography. Unrelated examples, I know, but similar enough. Also, I am a little concerned with the single source. Sure it's reliable, but a single source is just asking for trouble. Aren't there plenty of sources that might echo the forbes article? Such as CNN? Lastly, after taking a look at the forbes page, they have alot more types of lists and information then is provided here. I'm not saying a list of youngest billionares is required of this FLC, but it might be good to add an age column. Also, the fact that the sources of income column is sorable really isn't helpful. Whatabout a Industry column, so we could sort by people who became rich by energy, technology, retail, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, No. it is. The list is based on the Forbes list so that's why that's the primary source. If another source, like CNN, were to compile a similar list, the net worths and rankings would be different because different methods are used to calculate the lists. This article specifically states that it is based only off the Forbes list. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that begs the question: if the article is based solely on a single source, then why is this list even necessary? I'm not saying it should be deleted, or that I agree with that line of reasoning, but the list does seem to be on shaky ground here. What I would suggest (as I did above), would be to expand the list a bit with extra columns, extra info, or whatever. That way it's a) more useful to the reader, and b) not a verbatim copy of another source, rather it goes above and beyond what the reader could learn from going directly to Forbes. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, No. it is. The list is based on the Forbes list so that's why that's the primary source. If another source, like CNN, were to compile a similar list, the net worths and rankings would be different because different methods are used to calculate the lists. This article specifically states that it is based only off the Forbes list. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake about the sorting thing. But I do still think the column shouldn't be a symbol. Howabout "No."? As in Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography. Unrelated examples, I know, but similar enough. Also, I am a little concerned with the single source. Sure it's reliable, but a single source is just asking for trouble. Aren't there plenty of sources that might echo the forbes article? Such as CNN? Lastly, after taking a look at the forbes page, they have alot more types of lists and information then is provided here. I'm not saying a list of youngest billionares is required of this FLC, but it might be good to add an age column. Also, the fact that the sources of income column is sorable really isn't helpful. Whatabout a Industry column, so we could sort by people who became rich by energy, technology, retail, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire, but the problem is that each one uses a different methodology to do so. Therefore, we need a single source that uses the same methodology to get the values of each billionaire instead of hashing values from different sources using different methodologies together. Gary King (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough, but the list still needs to stand apart from it's source(s). If it were based on multiple sources, at least it could accrue an aggregate amount of information and centralize it all in one place. As it stands, the list is actually inferior to the single source provided, and provides nothing that the source does not, except for wikilinks. I understand that different sources calculate these things differently, but as it stands right now the list isn't a "List of billionaires in 2008", it's a "List of billionaires in 2008 according exclusively to Forbes". Which yet, again begs the question, why is this list even neccessary? Or, perhaps more relevant to this FLC, how does a direct transcription of a single source exemplify Wikipedia's best work? Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an age column. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, good start, but that doesn't really address the single-source thing. And looking at Colin's comments here and at the 2006 page, I have to agree with him on those points too. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked around, and the only articles that mention the people on the list and their wealth use Forbes as their reference. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The shortcomings of other articles doesn't really have anything to do with this list. Sorry to say it, but I really don't see any way to justify a single source for the entire list. Drewcifer (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I used other articles that used Forbes as a reference, would that be considered another source? That would mean they also consider Forbes to be a verifiable source. The problem is that Forbes is really the only publication that is willing to spend time to calculate the net worths of people around the world. Gary King (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The shortcomings of other articles doesn't really have anything to do with this list. Sorry to say it, but I really don't see any way to justify a single source for the entire list. Drewcifer (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked around, and the only articles that mention the people on the list and their wealth use Forbes as their reference. Gary King (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, good start, but that doesn't really address the single-source thing. And looking at Colin's comments here and at the 2006 page, I have to agree with him on those points too. Drewcifer (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an age column. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough, but the list still needs to stand apart from it's source(s). If it were based on multiple sources, at least it could accrue an aggregate amount of information and centralize it all in one place. As it stands, the list is actually inferior to the single source provided, and provides nothing that the source does not, except for wikilinks. I understand that different sources calculate these things differently, but as it stands right now the list isn't a "List of billionaires in 2008", it's a "List of billionaires in 2008 according exclusively to Forbes". Which yet, again begs the question, why is this list even neccessary? Or, perhaps more relevant to this FLC, how does a direct transcription of a single source exemplify Wikipedia's best work? Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Ohh, sorry. I thought you were referring to other Wikipedia articles. My fault. Yes, that would certainly be a good start. You could use the Forbes thing as a general resource, then have specific in-lines from wherever else. However, you said up above that "There are indeed a number of sources to get the net worth of each billionaire". Those other sources should definitely be used. Drewcifer (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that when I saw several resources, but then afterwards noticed they were using Forbes. I'll add in some references now; let me know if it's acceptable in the next few minutes. Gary King (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely looking better. I'd say I'm satisfied citation-wise. So, I only have two more concerns with the article (which I haven't mentioned yet, so apologies for being an endless supply of complaints): first, the title of the article isn't really accurate. If it was truly a list of billionaires, it would go all the way down to people who have less than 8.9 billion. So if I had 1.6 billion in the bank, I would be up there. At least according to the title. So, either a bigger list is necessary, or (the easier option), to change the scope slightly (and I suppose title) to the "100 wealthiest people" or something like that. Second, and this is more of a meta-concern, but since the scope of the list has been changed from just 2008 to a current list of billionaires (which is a good change), what will happen to the list in February 2009? And, what will happen to the 2007 and prior lists? Drewcifer (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of the 100 wealthiest people now. If you asked me, I'd just say to leave those lists. Also, I would imagine that this current list should be kept up to date as much as possible? Gary King (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I would assume that the list would get updated once a year, hence making year-by-year lists unnecessary. So, I also realize that everything from this FLC is kinda messing up alot of other billionaire-related articles, so I'd recommend taking another look at all of them and considering whether they're really worth keeping, or at least how to change/improve them to reflect all the decisions made here. That said, all of that has very little to do with this particular FLC. So, I only have a few more suggestions (yes, I know I keep saying that): first, I think it's generally good form to center align columns with numbers, and left align columns with text. So, you should center align the "No," and "Age" columns, and possibly the "Net worth" column. Second, the References column is really wide for what it does: I'd recommend abbreviating References to Ref. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, it would be good to have one more column concerning the person's industry. So we can sort by those who have earned their fortunes from technology, telecom, banking, etc. However, this last one is just a suggestion, not something I'll necessarily hold you to. Drewcifer (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of billionaire articles... I'll see when I can get around to doing them. Industry is hard since I either don't know a lot of these companies or the billionaires have very diversified interests. Industry is better suited for each company's articles. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, ignore that last point. The center align looks good, except for a couple where the code is haywire. Also, I don't think it's necessary to have the Ref column sortable. Also, I don't think 17 references requires the 3-column references section. Might not even warrant 2-columns. Drewcifer (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of billionaire articles... I'll see when I can get around to doing them. Industry is hard since I either don't know a lot of these companies or the billionaires have very diversified interests. Industry is better suited for each company's articles. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I would assume that the list would get updated once a year, hence making year-by-year lists unnecessary. So, I also realize that everything from this FLC is kinda messing up alot of other billionaire-related articles, so I'd recommend taking another look at all of them and considering whether they're really worth keeping, or at least how to change/improve them to reflect all the decisions made here. That said, all of that has very little to do with this particular FLC. So, I only have a few more suggestions (yes, I know I keep saying that): first, I think it's generally good form to center align columns with numbers, and left align columns with text. So, you should center align the "No," and "Age" columns, and possibly the "Net worth" column. Second, the References column is really wide for what it does: I'd recommend abbreviating References to Ref. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, it would be good to have one more column concerning the person's industry. So we can sort by those who have earned their fortunes from technology, telecom, banking, etc. However, this last one is just a suggestion, not something I'll necessarily hold you to. Drewcifer (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of the 100 wealthiest people now. If you asked me, I'd just say to leave those lists. Also, I would imagine that this current list should be kept up to date as much as possible? Gary King (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Surprised billionaire isn't linked anywhere.
- Probably need specific context that it relates to the year 2008 in the lead, not just assume we get from the fact Forbes released the list in 2008.
- Millhouse Capital redirects back to Abramovich (there may be other examples) - as per the Google acquisitions, I'm not too happy with this. Either unlink or write the article.
Not much else to moan about though, besides the slightly excessive external links and the dependency on a single primary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew
Comments
- There's what seems to me to be a stray comma in "Forbes is an American, national business magazine"
- I would change the key from "last year's list" to "2007's list" or something else more concrete.
- "As of 2008" links to 2008, and I don't think MOS:UNLINKYEARS likes it.
- Apart from one person, the residence is the same as the citizenship. I think it's a bit unnecessary, and I'd rather see where the business is based, I think.
- I'm not sure if the residency column is correct. As far as I know, Roman Abramovich lives in the UK, and according to his Wikipedia page, lives in Rogate, West Sussex.
- Per TRM's comments above, Corral Petroleum Holdings redirects to Mohammed Al Amoudi
- PPF Group redirects to Petr Kellner
- Unitech Group redirects to Ramesh Chandra
- Grupo Bal redirects to Alberto Baillères
- Quiñenco redirects to Antofagasta PLC
- Votorantim Group redirects to Antônio Ermírio de Moraes
- Uralskaya Gorno-Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya redirects to Iskander Makhmudov
- There are other redirects which I think should be fixed, for example "MashreqBank" redirects to "Mashreq Bank",
- "Echostar" redirects to "Dish Network Corporation"
- "Bharti Telecom" redirects to "Bharti Airtel"
- "Uralkali" redirects to "Mobile TeleSystems"
- Can August von Finck's source of wealth be more specific than simply "Investments"? All the others are businesses, and by simply reading the list one would think that "Investments" is a business name.
- Also August von Finck links to a disambig page
- Ronald Perelman's is also "investments", but this time with a little i
- There are a couple of others which is given as "investments", but I'd like to know what they invested in
- I think "MMK" should be written out fully as "Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works"
- "Lukoil" as "LUKoil"
- "Thomson Corporation" as "The Thomson Corporation"
- "LVMH" as "LVMH Moët Hennessy – Louis Vuitton"
- Shouldn't the Duke of Westminster be given as his real name?
- Raymond Kwok links to Raymond, while Thomas and Walter link to Sun Hung Kai and Walter Kwok respectively. I think they should all be given a last name, too, or written as "Raymond, Thomas and Walter Kwok"
- "Sun Hung Kai and Companies" redirects to Sun Hung Kai
- Iris Fontbona redirects to Antofagasta PLC
- Beau Bray redirects to Namco
- Nassef Sawiris and Alexei Kuzmichev redirect to their companies
- Dmitry Rybolovlev links to Mobile TeleSystems
- David Koch links to a disambig page
- "Suleiman Kerimov" links to Suleyman Kerimov
That's it. Mainly a lot of redirects to fix. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:59, 25 March, 2008 More
- The reference section doesn't need formatting like that as there's only 1 reference
- According to WP:SOURCES and WP:PSTS, the article needs secondary and tertiary sources. Try to include some other sources for everyone's wealth and source of wealth.
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:04, 25 March, 2008
More comments
- The link at the top to List of billionaires (2008) is now a double-redirect to List of the 100 wealthiest people via List of billionaires. The template at the bottom of the 100 wealthiest also needs fixing.
- There are two dates. The Lead section says March 5, but the "Top billionaires" section says Feb 11
- Roman Abramovitch I'm sure lives in the UK (see my comment above), and I think he'll get some income from Chelsea FC.
- Now this list has been moved, what's going to happen in 2009 in regards to a 2008 list? Will this be moved, and then a new list compiled at List of the 100 wealthiest people, or will it be lost in time?
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Following the recent vandalism, there still seems to be a conflicting entry at 73. Where it used to be Beau Brady and Namco, it is now Phillip Knight and Nike. (see the diff from the last known good edit on the 25th, to now). I don't want to change it though because I haven't verified it. Unfortunately, Criteria 1c (factually correct) and 1e (stability) are the problem right now, although 1c is easily fixed (see above), but the list is being vandalised, is currently edit-protected until April 10, and so I'm currently hesitant to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:18, 27 March, 2008
Comment I believe the links in the See also section are redundant, since those links are already in the "billionaire" template. I realize that by removing this section, the ToC will disappear, but it's not needed anyway.--Crzycheetah 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WP:NOT. We don't act as a statistical repository for old data. Yes I know this is the 2008 list and I didn't see the 2007 slip through as an FL. Rename this to List of billionaires and ensure you keep it up-to-date. See List of countries by Human Development Index and Global Peace Index for examples. Apart from a few sporting lists, Wikipedia presents current data. If a featured list contains data that is updated periodically, we expect editors to keep it refreshed in a timely manner or else it is defeatured. Colin°Talk 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what about articles such as Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 which is just a list of statistics (opinion polls, no less, meaning they may not even have any bearing on the final outcome), and I would say is far more unwieldy than this article. Gary King (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's discuss this issue at 2006 rather than repeat stuff here. Colin°Talk 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of billionaires (2008) has been moved to List of billionaires. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's discuss this issue at 2006 rather than repeat stuff here. Colin°Talk 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue with this just being a snapshot in time has been resolved: this list will be maintained as the current top billionaires. However, its scope and sourcing is now confused. Previously it was all according to Forbes on one day (yearly updated). If this is still the case (ie. the amount and rank come from Forbes) then Forbes should be a general reference, not a footnote (i.e, it has a bullet point and is listed at the end of the References section.) At the moment, it looks like many of the entries are unsourced since they have no entry in the ref column. If the entries now come from a mix of sources then the lead is totally misleading and you are conducting original research. It would be original research to collect people and valuations from multiple sources and then rank them in a top 100 order. In addition to being OR this would be statistically nonsense since your sources are all for different dates so the precise ranking is not possible. Finally, some of your "sources" are just news articles repeating Forbes. The Forbes list is a totally reliable source, in so far as you trust anyone to compile such a list. Why are any other sources required? At the moment I'm strongly opposed to this being featured. Sorry. Colin°Talk 10:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So... should I follow this line of reasoning or Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs)'s? This Wikipedia stuff is confusing. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is certainly an interesting situation. However, I don't think that my suggestions and Colin's are necessarily mutually exclusive. Colin's suggestion of making the Forbes source a general reference rather than an in-line is a very good suggestion. From what I can tell, the majority of the other sources merely echo the Forbes source, so I don't think there's a problem of ranking based on differing scales/moments in time. I suppose sourcing an article like that is a bit redundant, but I stand by the fact that a single source was a problem. The only thing left to do is to make sure that the Lead is worded very carefully, so that the scope/sourcing of the list is no longer confusing. Drewcifer (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully it's better now? Gary King (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no. I've just looked at nearly all your extra "references" and they all cite the Forbes list. They add nothing. Some of them aren't even citing the 2008 Forbes list, so they are one or two years out of date. I really don't see what Drewcifer's problem is with citing just Forbes. If the list is based on Forbes 11 February 2008 list then there is no getting away from it. Colin°Talk 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically because an article that is based on a single source is a) redundant, b) about as useful as a single external link, and c) goes against WP:RS, (specifically the fact that the guideline often uses the word "sources" (plural).) Here's what I think we should do: this seems to have become more of a meta-Wiki issue, so I recommend this FLC be closed (since it appears we're deadlocked anywys), and we can bring up the issue at WP:RS or WP:V or something like that. That way, we can get a broader set of opinions, and maybe the guideline can be reworded a bit to avoid confusion like this in the future. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a real shame to fail this list, because it is nearly there. I don't have any problem with only having a single source, especially when that source is the only one with any authority in the matter. The newspaper articles that repeat (possibly with errors) the Forbes list do not add anything (though they make us all aware, if we weren't already, of the importance of the Forbes list). The list serves a navigational purpose to the billionaire articles. All WP material duplicates what is out there; that doesn't stop us having our own version. I'm sure there are other FLs with one source (or lots of sources pointing to the same web site). Colin°Talk 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's not shame in failing an FLC, especially when the issues raised are beyond that of the single article. The list has been "nearly there" for sometime now (the FLC is almost 4 weeks old now), but for one reason or another seems to not quite make it according to someone for some reason. I just think it would be more productive to bring this issue up elsewhere, with the intention of renominating this list once the issue is settled. Drewcifer (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a real shame to fail this list, because it is nearly there. I don't have any problem with only having a single source, especially when that source is the only one with any authority in the matter. The newspaper articles that repeat (possibly with errors) the Forbes list do not add anything (though they make us all aware, if we weren't already, of the importance of the Forbes list). The list serves a navigational purpose to the billionaire articles. All WP material duplicates what is out there; that doesn't stop us having our own version. I'm sure there are other FLs with one source (or lots of sources pointing to the same web site). Colin°Talk 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically because an article that is based on a single source is a) redundant, b) about as useful as a single external link, and c) goes against WP:RS, (specifically the fact that the guideline often uses the word "sources" (plural).) Here's what I think we should do: this seems to have become more of a meta-Wiki issue, so I recommend this FLC be closed (since it appears we're deadlocked anywys), and we can bring up the issue at WP:RS or WP:V or something like that. That way, we can get a broader set of opinions, and maybe the guideline can be reworded a bit to avoid confusion like this in the future. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no. I've just looked at nearly all your extra "references" and they all cite the Forbes list. They add nothing. Some of them aren't even citing the 2008 Forbes list, so they are one or two years out of date. I really don't see what Drewcifer's problem is with citing just Forbes. If the list is based on Forbes 11 February 2008 list then there is no getting away from it. Colin°Talk 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully it's better now? Gary King (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about this page now, since its move. I preferred it when it was "List of billionaires (2008)", as it met criteria 1a3 and 1e. As soon as February 2009 rolls around, somebody had better update this list immediately, or it will become unfeatured. Sure, we expect editors to update it, but it doesn't mean they will. I didn't see the harm in having it set to one year; season pages for TV shows do this, as do lists of hurricanes (albeit for a longer period of perhaps a decade). It's also still semi-protected, which since that's an automatic fail for a GA, it should be an automatic fail for featured status. When does the protect expire? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether we should have (2006), (2007), (2008) is more the sort of discussion AfD handles. There are precedents for lists like this to be "current" and for the editors to be expected to keep it so in a timely manner. I don't think that should be a problem. Forbes have been doing this for over 20 years and it isn't WP's job to act as their archive. The semi-protection issue can be resolved by asking an admin to remove it -- and they will monitor if the trouble returns. Colin°Talk 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Colin that the list should be based completely off of the Forbes list and shouldn't mix things up by using other citations. Some of them are from last year (one is from 2006) so they are hardly up to date. As well, the lead should be expanded a bit. -- Scorpion0422 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I removed the references. What else can I add to the lead? Gary King (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to sound like a pain, but the lead needs at least one citation, perhaps for "Stock prices are defined as shares of ownership in a corporation, and exchange rates are defined as how much one currency is worth in terms of another."
- As for how to expand the lead, you could add who Warren Buffett replaced as the wealthiest man (Bill Gates?) and how long that person reigned for. You could also include things like which country has the most billionaires, who the richest woman is, and the fact that it is based entirely on the Forbes list should be mentioned in the lead. -- Scorpion0422 16:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I removed the references. What else can I add to the lead? Gary King (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - If there was at least SOMETHING added from other sources - short biographies, say - then this would be an encyclopaedic list. As it stands, however, this is not only a straight reproduction of the ranking in Forbes list, this pretty much is Forbes' list, even including the up and down arrow symbols to compare with the previous year. Something that uses one source and copies all information from it except changing the biographies (which are at least in the online version) to a list of companies mentioned in the biographies is not Wikipedia's best content. What it is is a copy violation. While it's certainly salvageable if you do some research, cut the Forbes-specific things like the moves in ranking (instead describing how their fortune has fared and changed over the last year), and make it Wikipedia's own, as it stands, it is a copyright violation. A very attractive derivative work that has had a lot of work put into it, but derivative works that are this similar to the original are still copyvios. Since information cannot be copyrighted, we can use Forbes' list as the basis for our own, but we cannot simply reproduce it while adding no new information. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose. This seems to be nothing more than a repackaging of the Forbes list (which is the article's only source)... the two are virtually identical... the only difference is that the Wikipedia article has a (unsourced) column for "sources of wealth", listing the various companies that the people own. Instead of being a good candidate for Featured List, it is closer to being a good candidate for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 22:21, 14 April 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.