Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1908 Summer Olympics medal table/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 Dabomb87 21:16, 31 July 2011.

1908 Summer Olympics medal table

 * Nominator(s): Miyagawa   (talk)  12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is now inline with the existing Olympic medal table FLs (i.e. 1896 Summer Olympics medal table and 1976 Summer Olympics medal table). I've done some touchups back and January and some more recently, although most of the referencing was completed over a year ago (but fortunately archived).

While I believe it is inline with existing FL medal tables, it has been a couple of years since the most recent one was promoted, and so I'm more than happy to make changes. Miyagawa  (talk)  12:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And after saying that, I notice the Paraolympic nomination three nominations below! :) Miyagawa   (talk)  21:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Satisfy all the criteria, great work.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry to take a dump in the punch bowl, but I have now read both the List and Article versions of the 1908 Olys. Both are short. I think much better to combine the two and make the best "larticle" you can, not worrying about classification. Then run it through whatever process makes sense. Probably here (they are more liberal and will put up with a lot of prose in their list, as opposed to fancy shmancy article people and the converse). Other than that, it looked clean. Much prettier than the Campaigns of Suleiman. I guess a little thing, but "front and back" or "obverse and reverse", no? I really think you should combine the list and article. Found myself wanting more prose in this thing. And heck, how much list is really here? A medal table? I think Sandy would take that fine at the bottom of an article (we have aerospace articles with tables that dense at the the end.) but here is fine too. But I think the artifical split is a waste when we have a short article and...a table. Sorry...totally heart love of the topic. not love of star-collecting though.TCO (reviews needed) 06:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps you're missing one thing that "Wikipedia is not a paper", so IMO separate medal table is not a "waste" of anything, specially not of space.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   06:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue of server space but of different pages or same pages. The advantage of same page is compare and contrast and ease of navigation.  Advantage of separate pages has to do with topics that have grown over long or are very different.  However in this case we have two articles (the nominal list and nominal article) that are both very short and very similar.  I honestly think the reader is better served by combination.  HAve the best table in the article and the best prose in the list.  And that means combine.  And if it gets unGodly long, split.  But you are not there, yet!TCO (reviews needed)  06:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that there isn't enough room to place every medal table on every main Olympic article. The issue arises when you realise that you have 1908 Summer Olympics, 1908 Summer Olympics medal table, Bids for the 1908 Summer Olympics, List of 1908 Summer Olympics medal winners and then all the little nations at the 1908 Olympics articles. For every single Olympics there are a set of these and its become standard practice to split them all up in this way. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to say that I disagree with the opposition in this instance. It's not like the main article has three lines of text and then the top-10 table. To me this is a valid split from the main article. It would be questionable if this was a 10- or 11-item list, but 19 is just enough that I don't think this is a 3b violation.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 19:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was not meant to be procedural. Just looking at the the articles, the article article and the list article, there is a big overlap of content and both are "short".  I honestly think that from a reader standpoint (nothing to do with "rules") that benefit is made from merging.  The 1908 Olys are a mystery to the modern reader.  More than a century ago.  Splitting what little content we have...is not helping.TCO (reviews needed)  19:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Meets FL standards, good work. Should not be merged into the main article, the main article should be made to grow. Courcelles 19:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per above supporters, and the fact I haven't seen any issues with the list itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


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