Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)/archive1

Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)
This article has been well researched and has been a GA candidate in the past. At the recommendation of the last GA review, it was decided to seperate the main text of the article into a new article (Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) and leave the actual calendar in list format. At the recommendation of User:Drieakko, it is being nominated as a Featured list while the new article is being submitted for GA review. -- jackturner3 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * References should be better formatted, inline citations would be helpful. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what would a "better format" for references be? And what would an example of something within the article needing an inline citation?
 * Some of the statements in the lead could use a citation. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments. First, you've done some great work on these articles, Jack.  You may want to, if you have not, check out some of the recent promotions of featured lists, I think there are probably some good ideas as far as layout there.  My main comment, as far as content, would be to go with either the ELW or the LBW calendar for the ELCA.  As it stands currently, I'm not sure which calendar is the primary source for the ELCA calendar on the page (for example, Thomas is observed on Dec 21 in the LBW calendar, but is not noted as such on the list; but Rasmus Jensen is listed on February 20 even though he was removed for the ELW calendar).  My own inclination would be to go with the ELW calendar, as it is the most current calendar of commemorations in the ELCA.  As a minor note, it is standard to spell out the word Saint before a person's name; and use the abbreviation before places (thus, Saint John, but the Basilica of St. John; Saint Thomas, but the Island of St Thomas).  I think this list is pretty close over all.  Pastordavid 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The choice of the LBW or ELW was a hard one. In the end, I went with the LBW as the primary base for nomenclature because it represents the closest thing we have to consensus among Lutherans in North America.  In this way, where the language for festivals and commemorations held in common by the ELCA and the LCMS come into conflict, I have determined that the LBW overrules both LSB and ELW.  For dates, ELW and LSB rule the day since, as you say, they are more current.  Perhaps this material should be stated directly in the open since it is directly related to methodology and I’m open to doing that if it is deemed necessary.


 * Since Jensen is no longer on either calendar, I have removed him. I have also gone back and made sure everything is correct on the calendar for both the ELCA and the LCMS and have wikified the use of saint on the calendar.  I have looked at some of the other lists recently promoted (as well as some of the other calendars), and I’m open to discussion on the subject of format if there is a big issue with it.
 * jackturner3 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the fixes. Support.  As far as formatting, you know that I prefer the table-style without the empty dates (a la January here) but my preference for that style is not enough for me to oppose.  Well done.  Pastordavid 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak support
 * Is it necessary to have empty dates ?
 * For references, see Cite book and similar templates. Circeus 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I’m sold on it because I like the layout better than just having everything crammed on top of each other (I think it makes it easier to read). However, if that is a make-or-break issue for promotion, I’m certainly willing to discuss it.  As for references, I’m using Chicago Style.  As far as I know, that’s acceptable, which is why I had posed the question to  Phoenix2  of what a “better format” for references was.
 * jackturner3 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Why is the article disambiguated? It should be at Lutheran Calendar of Saints. (same with Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)). Circeus 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Calendar of Saints (X Church)" is the standard that is used for the majority of articles about calendars of saints and commemorations.  It seems, as someone who works with WP Saints, to make the most sense to leave that one there (see Category:Liturgical calendars for examples).  On the other article (unrelated to this FA nomination), I would support moving to Lutheran litrugical calendar.  Pastordavid 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't suspected it was part of a larger scheme (which, given some of the odder names, makes sense.) I retract that. Circeus 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested Updates
OK, of the projects requested from various editors


 * Change all instances of St. to Saint.


 * Check all entries to ensure conformity with current commemorations in the ELW and LSB


 * “Better format” for references.
 * Still not sure what this means. The format I have used is standard Chicago style.  If I must use a Wikipedia template, I will do so, but I would appreciate knowing if this is an essential for everyone here or not.


 * Citation of “some” of the lead statements.
 * Again, not certain what this is to mean since the specific lead statement which needs a citation was not pointed out. Again, happy to do it, just need to know which one to do it too.  I’ve been working on this for so long, I’m kind of getting blinder’s syndrome.


 * Decide if empty date format is necessary.
 * This is one of those things that I suppose we need to have a discussion about. I’m not certain if this is a deal breaker or not, but many of the other calendars are formatted in this manner (and when the list was originally created, this was how they were all done).  In any event, I’m willing to discuss it, but I would need those who are interested in a calendar change to discuss it with me.

Those are the only projects that were opened by nominating this list for featured status. I would like to see the necessary consensus built and the list promoted, so for those who are working on this, I would appreciate hearing from you. -- jackturner3 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)