Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Bluegrass Album/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 02:31, 22 October 2010.

Grammy Award for Best Bluegrass Album

 * Nominator(s): Another Believer  ( Talk ) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria and resembles the other Grammy-related featured lists I have produced (see profile for a complete list). As always, a huge thank you to reviewers for taking the time to look over the list and offer suggestions if needed. Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=f0gOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5n4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6904,613679&dq is dead. Ucucha 21:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just saw this myself (bot update on watchlist). However, this may be a temporary problem, as I noticed several other pages on my watchlist were updated with the "dead link" template. All of them involve Google News links, so either there is a temporary glitch with Google News links, or by coincidence several links have "died" very recently (I access many of these links often since they can be repeated on the other Grammy-related lists I work on). I will be sure to keep an eye on the pages recently updated by the bot. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, the link is still dead, so I went ahead and replaced it with another reference. Hopefully the problem will correct itself, because a bunch of articles on my watchlist were just marked by the same bot for dead links. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ucucha 18:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Courcelles 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support no worries from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - all looks good to me. You're doing well with the Grammy lists, you can't have more than another 297 to go ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use  Also the use of lots of small text fails the principles of WP:ACCESS --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1  &#124;  talk2me  18:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not aware there are requirements for table construction. Aren't there different table formats used throughout Wikipedia? Also, the smaller text prevents significant line wrapping and signifies that entries are nominees but not winners. Both the table and the smaller text are consistent with other Grammy-related featured lists. I am always happy to comply with Wikipedia rules, but could I get feedback from another reviewer or a FL director before making changes? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK on second thoughts the small text could be seen to serve a purpose. But the wikitable code stuff requires a definite update. There are different formats used but now according to WP:Wikitable there is only one approved format which cannot be compromised as it is the only format which passes WP:MOS. Of course other people can comment. I brought it up as I am a member of project WP:ACCESS and I've noticed that a lot of people still haven't realised that changes have been made hence this is the best way for us to get the message out. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  19:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not too familiar with table construction (I tend to find one that works for me then copy it over to other articles I am working on), but I will take a look at the link you provided and see if I can correct the table. Assuming we can settle on a new format with works for all, I will copy the table format over to the other Grammy-related FLs I have worked on. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment. WP:Wikitable is not WP:MOS.  It's a help page.  Please define exactly what part of MOS this list fails.  Be very precise so we can assess whether it needs to be fixed, and whether it has knock-on effects to other FLCs.  The best way to "get the message out" would have been to alert the FLC contributors at WT:FLC that there was an issue, not suddenly "fail"/"oppose" a dozen lists within 20 minutes with comments that don't appear to be (a) valid or (b) part of MOS.  We really don't need anything else to dissuade contributors at FLC – this "moving goalposts" as a result of a supposed MOS change is extremely unhelpful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion about this concern has spread to several pages. I am trying to follow the conversation, but it is proving to be somewhat difficult. I hope that FLC nominators will be notified as to whether or not changes need to be made once a decision is reached (and that enough time will be given to make the changes if any are required). Just posting my thoughts since I feel this nomination is in a bit of a state of limbo, as is the other Grammy list currently undergoing review at FLC. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


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