Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS/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 16:02, 31 October 2009.

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS

 * Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it to be complete and comprehensive. The list is quite long which I understand could be a blocking issue for FLC. If indeed this list gets promoted to FLC special thanks goes to User:Jim Sweeney who created most of the people referenced on this list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments Support: Impressive list!
 * 1. Possibly a stupid question: The list of "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" has no number column. Why?
 * To my knowledge the German's never had a coherent numbering paradigm for the lowest grade of Knight's Cross. Only for the Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds did they introduce a formal numbering scheme. Very occasionally you come across a nomination or recommendation number for an individual, but this has nothing to do with a sequential numbering scheme. I therefore sorted the lowest list alphabetically. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Could the "SS-" in the "rank" column be dropped since it seems that everybody was in the SS?
 * No, because occasionally you will also find the Waffen- prefix MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. At least one of the "Waffen-..." needs a hyphen. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * done thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. Could you make the "unit" and "date" columns sortable?
 * "date" yes, "unit" not sure if this makes sense MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making it date-sortable. For the "unit" column, I'd suggest to decide on certain categories, e.g., "Panzer-Division"/"Panzergrenadier"/"Kavallerie-Brigade"/... (not sure what would be a good choice as I don't know much about the subject). Then you could add hidden sort keys to the table with the chosen categories.bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * done see my comments below MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 4. Possibly the first of the external links reading "Lexion der Wehrmacht" (three times) needs to be fixed.
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. The lead reads smoother without the sentence: "Recipients are grouped by grades of the Knight's Cross." Maybe you could move it to the end of the lead section.
 * done good point MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * bamse (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Indeed, good list. What I miss are birth and death dates. Now a death date is only with some entries placed in the notes section. Garion96 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed the same layout as some of the other military award lists that already achieved FLC status; see List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross or List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients. They don't list the birth date either. I only listed the death date if it was somehow linked (killed in action, died of wounds, suicide, execution) to action in WW2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - the list is impressive, but insanely long. As a primary editor, why did you choose to keep the lists in a single article rather than splitting them into subgroups? Geraldk (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question, actually this is the kind of feedback I am seeking and I am open for ideas. I am unsure how to approach this. Would splitting this into two sections of A-M and M-Z make sense? What do I do with the higher grades? Do I keep them separately? If you have suggestions I gladly incorporate them. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided. I'd like to see what other reviewers say. I really think you could do it either way (one unified article or separate articles), but the length of the table for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross makes it difficult to navigate, and there may be some value in splitting it. You set up a conflict, though, between navigability and the value of having a unified list. I do think, though, that both the unit and notes columns should be sortable, the former so readers can identify units from which more than one person received awards, the latter to allow a reader to sort those who were killed in action or were awarded higher levels of the cross. Geraldk (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments on sorting: I introduced a sorting scheme by unit for the 3 higher grades of the KC. Please visit what I have done. The underlying sort key is the respective SS division, corps or army. If this is what you believe is required please let me know and I will apply this to the lowest grade as well.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I made it sortable as requested. However if the article needs to split up for size reasons than do note that coherent sorting will not be possible anymore. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments regarding size: How about breaking the lower grade of the KC recipients (alphabetical sublist) into two list List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS: A-M and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS: N-Z. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have that concern about splitting the list too. It may be that the only sensible way to deal with it would be to make the regular Knights Cross recipients of the Waffen SS a separate article and have an article of just the Knight's Cross plus other stuff. Geraldk (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Is the size issue the only "major" issue? Just to make sure that I'm not missing anything else. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well size here is a big issue. Please split Oak Leaves from Iron Cross (Iron Cross is the main list anyway).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You also have very few images, eventhough there are more available like: Herbert Otto Gille, August Dieckmann, Hermann Prieß, Hans Dorr, Fritz von Scholz, Felix Steiner, Paul Hausser and many more....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These images have questionable copy right status. What I mean is that I have seen other images of the same copy right status being rejected before. I therefore want to refrain using them here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They're PD in the US and are therefore allowed on Wikipedia. I don't see the questionabilty of that. Please add these images since they are relevant to this list. Don't add the ones that are Fair use...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the Oak Leaves Swords and Diamonds section to List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS. I hope this fully addresses the length issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I think it's fine now. Better than fine, actually. Incredibly thorough. The notes section is longer and more detailed than some articles I've written. Well done. Geraldk (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Images: Licensing seems fine and alt text is provided.  Good raise  12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources: No concerns.  Good raise  12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm sorry. This is an impressive list, but it's simply too long. I suggest splitting it into three parts.  Good raise  12:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The length recommendations in the MoS exist largely to ensure ease of accessibility by readers, under the assumption that articles that take longer than about 20 minutes to read are less accessible. First, unlike dense text in an article of this length, information in a list format like this is inherently more organized and remains relatively easy to access despite its length. Second, the series of lists on the Knight's Cross is already splintered into a ton of articles, and further splintering this on some arbitrary alphabetical split will actually make the information less accessible to readers. A reader who looks at this list will most likely be interested in Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen SS, not just the ones between A and M, and to access the full amount of information they want to, they will have to jump back and forth between two articles. Thus, while your opposition seems to be based on the letter of the law, I believe that it violates the spirit. Geraldk (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting the issue of page loading time. Not all our readers use computers powered by multicore processors with broadband internet connections. Anyway, if you believe my position is in line with the letter but not the spirit of the guideline, then why don't you hop over to Article size and change it?  Good raise  21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not forgetting page loading time, what I'm saying is there is no perfect solution here, but I think we should err on the side of not splintering articles too much. And I do think Article size applies quite well in most cases and does not currently require changing, but there is a reason it is a guideline, as you say, rather than a rule. Geraldk (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The featured list criteria demand that featured lists "compl[y] with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." This page doesn't do that, therefore I can't support. Sorry.  Good raise  22:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the very top of the page you keep citing says the following: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." You're really not willing to consider the possibility that the article size guideline can be flexible? Geraldk (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we're not disagreeing on whether guidelines are flexible. They are. We're disagreeing on how flexible this one is. When I take the guideline status, the vague wording, and mix in a bit of ignore all rules, then I still come to the conclusion that a 170 KB list is too large.  Good raise  00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note taken, since two reviewers approve while one opposes I'll wait before splitting up the article until more reviewers have commented on the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that arbitrarily splitting articles and lists only disconveniences the reader by spreading the same related information across multiple pages. This makes it impossible to accurately see all list members at once and renders the sort feature completely useless. Also, with the sortability of the Unit column, aren't List of Knight's Cross recipients 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, List of Knight's Cross recipients 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, List of Knight's Cross recipients 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf, etc. redundant? Hardly anything needs to be done to merge and redirect them. Reywas92 Talk 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Reywas that there is no need to split the list. List of Chicago Blackhawks players and List of Detroit Red Wings players are two 800+-item FLs that I can think of off the top of my head; the latter would probably be larger in bytes than this list if the many notes weren't included here. I always lean in favor of having a comprehensive list whenever possible, and don't think the size is quite at the overwhelming point where a split would be justified.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that I have no opinion on whether the list should be split. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the list violates Article size.  Good raise  02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the few with very slow browsers it may take a little while to load, but it's not in violation otherwise. Most of WP:SIZE refers to readability: No one wants to read a novel. But this page is a list with very little readable prose, so size limitations don't apply the same way. And remember, most of the list's size is from the wikimarkup for the table that doesn't show up on the page. It could be cut by 20% by just removing all the spaces and templates that make up the table, without making any visible difference. Reywas92 Talk  03:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per Reywas92's comments.—NMajdan &bull;talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm extremely reluctant to attempt to review this list, but am here because opinions have been requested. While I think accessibility is something that is rightly being debated very seriously, we have to weigh up the benefits of splitting against the drawbacks. I don't see how a split could be carried out in a way that doesn't detract from the usefulness of the list. There will be load-time issues, but I'd rather wait twice as long for something comprehensive than wait quite a long time in the first place only to find that I'm going to need to wait that time again to load the other page, wait even longer to sort both lists, and then have to manually cross-check them. WFCforLife (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


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