Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners/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 22:44, 17 November 2009.

List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners

 * Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar to the 1924 list which was just promoted, but I've gone through to correct problems that cropped up in the previous nom. Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - don't see any problems— Chris! c / t 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - it all looks good. --Lightlowemon (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for the reviews and support. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The general reference could use some instructions on how to retrieve the actual data from that site.
 * I've switched the link to take you to the more user-friendly version of the dbase. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's better. However, this version of the database appears to allow direct links to result pages. For example this link could be used to reference the whole bobsleigh section without a need for the reader to query the database themselves. Using this method throughout the article would be a significant improvement. By the way, you didn't change the title of reference 4.  Good raise  00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The olympic.org website is undergoing significant changes, and I did not link to individual dbase results for the simple reason that the pages may not last very long. Seeing as use of a general reference is accepted practice on FLC, and in the interest of meeting the stability criterion, I'd prefer not to change it. Are you saying that a general reference is unnacceptable? Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. I'm only saying that direct links would significantly improve the usability of the list to users who care enough to check its claims against the sources. Anyway, I don't think that replacing dead references would make the list unstable in the sense of criterion 6. If I may ask, exactly how unstable is olympic.org?  Good raise  02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a hard question to answer. They just revamped their entire website, and sometime in the next few weeks I'll have to go back through a bunch of Olympics FLs and fix a whole lot of dead links. The only part they didn't touch was this database, but I'm worried that it, too, will change soon, hence my concern about lots and lots of potentially dead links. I think you're right that it would make the article better to have individual refs, but, well, that's the conflict. If you think that verifiability outweighs (potential) instability, I'm happy to go through and add them. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't think that instability is an issue here at all. I'd be very surprised if criterion 6 was intended that way. The way I understand it, it's only about edit wars and ongoing content disputes. I can also understand your reluctance to make yourself more work than necessary, but that's simply part of getting that bronze star. After all, you don't have to do it, if you catch my drift.  Good raise  00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you're holding the promotion hostage to it, I do. Any suggestions for how to write the citations? Seems to me they would all look the same to the reader, the only difference being the url, which is not visible in the cite web template. Geraldk (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not holding anything hostage. My point was that you're here at FLC voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you, right? As for the citations, WP:CITE leaves a great deal of freedom. If you don't want so many citations to look the same (which I wouldn't object to), then you could, for example, use some sort of shortened footnote system.  Good raise  03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Weak support. I've thoroughly reviewed this nomination. I'll be happy to fully support it once that minor citation issue is dealt with.  Good raise  04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment – "464 athletes from 25 National Olympic Committees...". Try not to have a sentence start with a number like this. That's the only thing that jumped out at me when I read the list.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – That one comment was my only concern about the list. Individual refs would be a nice luxury, but are not important enough to me to withhold support over.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I'm going out of town for three days, and will be able to address concerns when I return. Apologies, this was sudden. Geraldk (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.