Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Irish monarchs/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 not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 11:59, 19 September 2008.

List of Irish monarchs
This list hasn't been reviewed before but it looks quite good. There are plenty of sources and the list is logical and aesthetically pleasing. Thanks for reviewing! :) --Cameron* 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * These days, we discourage the start of list being simply "This is a list of the monarchs of Ireland." - things have moved on. I'd opt for some background and some context on who these Irish monarchs are/were and why they're relevant. Check out some of the other FLCs here for some ideas. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * Lead is a little short - I'd look for at least two fat paragraphs. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * No real need for that bold in the caption. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * Probably worth considering a few links in the lead - Henry VIII, Church of England etc. In fact, for non-experts, some of this may even be a little too specialist... Consider "appealing to all". [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * "The Kings of Irish Kingdoms to 1607" - hdg - last time I looked, headings were discouraged from having something like "The... " at the beginning.[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * " consisted as few as five and as many as nine main kingdoms" - isn't it consisted of? [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * "The following is a list of the main Irish kingdoms and their kings" - avoid, introduce these concepts using elegant and engaging prose. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * A bunch of words in the "The Kings of Irish Kingdoms to 1607" section which I'm confused about - e.g. "Sil Muiredaig", "Eóganachta" etc...[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * They are dynasties. As far as I know there is no anglicisation of the dynasty. I've made it more clear by adding dynasty after the name. --Cameron* 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Use en-dash for year ranges, not hyphen. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * Avoid linking headings, such as House of Plantagenet. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * These days, the MOS says wikilinking of dates for autoformatting is deprecated, so perhaps consider unlinking the dates in the table. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * "traditionally murdered" - reads odd to me. How is one traditionally murdered?!  I know what you mean but perhaps add "believed to be" or "considered" between the tradition and the act? [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * Henry VIII last cell is incomplete. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * Numbers below ten should be written in text - 8 children - eight children. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]
 * References should use the  parameter correctly.
 * Make the changes, keep the FLC open. This is, by no means, the neediest list!  Keep up the good work and enthusiasm.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the last bullet to me? I don't fully understand it. Also, could you check that the intro paragraphs are "fat" enough? ;) Is the first sentence acceptable? I got it off another featured list but it's rather short and uninventive! Thanks again! ;) --Cameron* 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When you reference things, use the Cite web template and fill in as much as you can, including things like ...  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So bascially (to a layman like me;)) convert and use cite web inside it. It makes for a consistent appearance for all refs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't like the name. I look at it, and I think, "This is a list of monarchs of Irish descent." But it appears to be about monarchs of Ireland. It should be named "List of monarchs of Ireland". --Golbez (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Golbez! Some of the minor Irish monarchs (in the first list, ie up to 1607) are of Irish descent. Usually I would agree with you, however all our monarchial lists use the "List of X monarchs" format. Btw you could say the same for List of Canadian monarchs. Just don't go there! ;)--Cameron* 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider this an outgrowth of my complaint on WT:FLC. Just because other lists are named lazily doesn't mean the trend should continue. And in fact I would definitely say that other list should be renamed "List of monarchs of Canada", I don't understand your fear of it. =p --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear it because I will be the one left to split List of British monarchs into list of monarchs of GB and list of monarchs of UK. No matter, I will probably enjoy doing so. ;) Regards, --Cameron* 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I put a note on both WP:IRELAND and WP:COMMONWEALTH. --Cameron* 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: To be honest, I don't see the point of it. It's just a list of English/British/United Kingdomish kings and queens with the word "Ireland" substituted, and a shorter list of old Irish kingdoms to give it local flavour.  If people want a list of monarchs let them just go to List of English monarchs/List of British monarchs.  Scolaire (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:There are some Irish Irish monarchs on the page too, if you get what I mean. The information presented on the Irish monarchs page is actually entirely different to the English monarchs page. There are only similar on a first glance. Take another look and tell me what you think. ;) Best, --Cameron* 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the names, pictures, births, marriages and deaths are identical with those on the English and British lists, for the good and simple reason that they are the same people. The whole of Irish history is one of struggle against the Norman/English/British/United Kingdomish invaders, as you well know.  Presenting their kings as though they were popularly acclaimed by the Irish people is pure silly!  Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please let us keep our personal convictions out of this. I never said anything about them being "popularly acclaimed by the Irish people".
 * PS:There is not such word as United Kingdomish. ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal conviction is that this is a poor candidate for featured list. It's difficult to !vote without expressing that. PS There is now :-)  Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your comment has anything to do with the featured list criteria. Could you please explain why it does not meet the criteria for being a featured list? Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to it being a featured list because it is a silly list and a pointless list. End of story.  I have said all I have to say.  Scolaire (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Resolute 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have said all I have to say? Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Because it should include the historical Irish high-kings, probably from Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid give or take. That's a pretty big failure in coverage. But sources used are dogdy (e.g. Peerage.com) and mostly internet based (hence lazy), plus the info on each one is just a replication of info on other similar articles (per some concerns already mentioned). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.thepeerage.com/p10201.htm#i102006 a reliable source? Looking at John's entry (because it's first) it's using Weir's Britain's Royal Family, Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry DeBrett's, the old Dictionary of National Biography (which is outdated) and two websites. While none of this is spectacuarly wrong, it is pretty odd to not just use the many and varied biographies of John available. This is obviously not the best source available. (And it has John marrying firstly twice???)
 * What makes http://www.archontology.org/ a reliable source?
 * You have your publishers of the websites in the link titles. Please list them outside the link titles.
 * Other websites don't list a publisher at all.
 * What makes http://www.britannia.com/ a reliable source?
 * Likewise http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm?
 * And http://www.britroyals.com/index.htm?
 * And http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/index.htm?
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.