Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Man'yōshū poets/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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:08:49 28 April 2019 (UTC).

List of Man'yōshū poets

 * Nominator(s): Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. It feature professional standards of writing, its lead clearly defines the inclusion criteria, layout and style, etc., it is comprehensive in that it includes every single poet with an entry identifying them as the writer of a poem in Nakanishi Susumu's authoritative Man'yōshū Jiten. It is structured in English alphabetical order with alphabetic section headings, and the layout/organization style was checked by a number of other editors when I requested assistance in formatting it, it complies (as far as I am aware) with all MOS guidelines, and is about as stable as could be. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - the lead definitely needs a lot of work. Lists shouldn't start "This is a list...." and the lead should be much longer than five sentences.  At the moment the lead is basically a key written in prose form.  I would expect to see two or three paragraphs giving much more background/context on what the Man'yōshū is, information on the most prominent poets, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of work in giving a brief outline of the anthology and its most prominent poets (as determined by Donald Keene, who gives multi-page bios and critiques of the poetry of those poets he considers noteworthy). I had been assuming linking to our Man'yōshū article would be sufficient for this purpose, but it is in a rather sorry state I'll admit. I might have misinterpreted your second sentence in outright removing "This is a list..." despite having already added extensive commentary above that so it was no longer the "start". Your opinion on the new content would also be much appreciated. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a proper review later when I have a bit more time, but the lead looks immeasurably better now. Re: your point about simply linking to the main article, in essence each article should stand alone, so a reader shouldn't have to leave this article to get the background/context of what it's about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I really think this list would look better in a table format, the way it looks now in columns is very confusing and messy. Also try to avoid "in the following list " as stated above. An alternative would be "Numbers are assigned to...". Also the prose needs a bit of work, it's a bit clunky in places, but that will have to wait a full review. Mattximus (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll get working on your prose/wording suggestions shortly. As for the table thing, I'm amenable to that, but it seems like a pretty big project and so I'd rather wait for more people to weigh in before starting to implement it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See my response to BeatlesLedTV below. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mattximus, I think the list would look better in a table. Right now, the list looks odd because K's are right next to O's and so on. Just make a table format with their name, maybe birth and death year (if applicable) or KKTK number(s), notes, and a ref col then you'd be good to go. Make sure they have scope rows and cols per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB). Also, are their any pictures you can add? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinion from BeatlesLedTV
 * Okay, two is enough, so I'll start implementing it now. It's my first time, so if you see anything I'm doing wrong please don't hesitate to tell me. Cheers! Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Make sure you have scope rows in the name col. Also, make the note and ref cols unsortable. And shorten "Reference(s)" to just "Ref(s)" BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've done most of it all right, but I'm not entirely sure what "scope rows" are. I may have accidentally done so, but I somehow doubt it; but I've definitely done the rest and if you can clarify what I should do regarding the scope cols I'd be happy to do so, even if I've accidentally made more work for myself by doing everything else before checking. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm afraid in my opinion it doesn't meet the FL criteria, failing 5a, specifically a minimal proportion of items are redlinked., I would guess that 75 to 80% of the items listed are redlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is my intention that English Wikipedia will ultimately have articles on all the poets listed here, since every single poem in the MYS has been subjected to a high degree of scholarly scrutiny, and so even those poets whose biographies are unknown to us could still have good articles written about their work (and they definitely all meet GNG). However, would you prefer that in the short term I address your concern by unlinking all the entries that don't already have articles? Technically it is not a criterion for FL that the linked articles already exist (and it's certainly not a criterion that entries actually have articles, or even theoretically meet GNG), just that the list be visually appealing, so unlinking all of them in the short term would definitely solve that. However, it's pretty subjective -- you're not the first person to tell me you think my redlinks are not visually appealing, but I don't personally agree (I personally find them neither attractive nor ugly) -- so I'd rather not move ahead on that unless I'm certain you'd support this promotion if I did so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I would rather wait until you have created the majority of the articles before nominating this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, you think I should write the majority of 500 articles on mostly obscure historical figures before nominating a list of said figures? That's not actually one of the FL criteria... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If each of them are notable then yes, that's my personal opinion. There's no deadline. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There may be no deadline, but I've gone to a lot of effort to make this list meet the FL criteria specifically as they already exist, and while I would like to create all those hundreds of articles eventually, I really would rather not see this nomination fail in the short term because the list doesn't meet a separate unwritten criterion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, it's just my opinion as a reviewer. If indeed each entry is notable then they should be linked.  If there are too many redlinks, it fails the criterion.  That's just how it is as far as I'm concerned.  And your work has not been wasted in any sense, simply a case of creating the majority of the redlinked articles and you no longer fall foul of that criterion.  Unlinking them is, in my opinion, inappropriate and tantamount to gaming the FLC process.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the criterion actually just refers to the visual presentation of the list, not whether it should be failed because there are too many entries on the list that meet the notability criteria but don't have articles yet. The redlink issue could be dealt with very simply by unlinking the entries that don't have articles yet, but I don't agree that the redlinks are ugly so I don't want to do that unless I think doing so will change your opinion on whether the list should pass. The majority of entries must have standalone articles" is not one of the criteria, and the criterion you have been citing refers exclusively to unattractive presentation of a large number of redlinks; removing the redlinks until the articles are created would not be "gaming the FLC process" at all. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree. If we think these are notable individuals, they should be linked.  I'm sure others will have different opinions, but I cannot support this list right now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.