Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1984 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 15:15, 9 October 2011.

List of 1984 Winter Olympics medal winners

 * Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

After the medal table list, now the medal winners list. Created this one from scratch and tried my best to develop it to a state which I now think is reasonably ready to undergo a FLC process. The only issue might be a cluster on red links in the ice hockey section, but I see it as a "minimal proportion" and I really did not want to go and create a bunch of bio stubs just to fix that. Your reviews and comments are much appreciated. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

violet/riga [talk] 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) I've corrected several links in the lead that fail Links in that their target articles were not obvious. Others may exist so this needs checking.
 * 2) It would be interesting to know if some of the medal winners were making their Olympic debut, and perhaps if it was the last Games for some. I would probably support the article without this but it would be an interesting addition.
 * Thanks for the copyediting. Nonetheless, I removed the links to the countries proper which are irrelevant to the article (unlike before when they pointed to the country's participation at the Games). As for your second point, Tretiak's caption mentions his last Olympic medal, but I haven't made an exhaustive search. I'll see what I can do. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not need to look too much to understand that the 1984 Games (and most likely other editions) were either the first, the last or the only Winter Olympics for most of the listed medal winners. If one weighs the predictably large amount of data resulting from this with the relevance to the page, I do not think it's worth the effort. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Meets the FL criteria. Nice work. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, with only one small correction. I think the references to "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC" should be altered, to use  and  . The "LLC" is entirely unnecessary, and the website's name need not be repeated. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The section of that website dedicated to the Olympics (i.e. the  parameter) is called "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com", and according to this page, that's how any content taken from it should be referenced. "Sports Reference LLC" is the full name of the entity publishing the content online, just like The Times newspaper is published by Times Newspapers Ltd.
 * We are not obliged to follow other people's suggestions for reference formatting, particularly where it conflicts with common sense or our own (rather better thought-out) guidelines. The site as a whole proclaims itself to be called "Sports Reference", not "Sports-Reference.com", and the Olympics section is only part of that. Your Times analogy is apt; the article is at News International, not News International Ltd, and such descriptors are generally omitted in citations, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, your arguments are solid and since I'm not sure about the position of the WikiProject Olympics on this matter, I'd like to bring it up to the project discussion, because a change like that would affect not only this page but hundreds of other Olympics-related articles. I presume that this is not an impediment for your support? Parutakupiu (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection, no, it's not serious enough to cause opposition. I do still think the format is imperfect, but you are right that it doesn't need to be sorted out here and now. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comprehension. I have already taken this matter for discussion within the project. If and when we reach a decision, I can report it to you, if you're still interested. Thank you. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


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