Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cardinal-nephews/archive2


 * 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 Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009.

List of cardinal-nephews

 * Nominator(s): Savidan, CarlosPn

This list is the counterpart to the featured article Cardinal-nephew. It is useful for assessing the frequency of the practice over its history and the variation therein. All the image are free. The first nomination failed as a result of the redlinks, but the relevant language has been removed since the criteria were modified last year. User:CarlosPn has also contributed substantially to this list. Savidan 19:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - dashes between years should be endashes— Chris!  c t 02:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. One day I'll learn the difference... Savidan 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Just a couple things that I recommend
 * I think that the cells that have nothing in them should have a centered emdash.
 * In the notes column you have everything marked as a reference but there are some that I think should be notes instead of references (like when you mention that they went on to become a pope)
 * I think that some of your references (such as 2,4 and 11) would be more appropriate as notes rather than as references. If you need an exampleof what I mean by a note take a look at what I did on this article(please excuse the semi-inappropriate irony)--Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have split the reference notes from the footnotes as you suggest. I have added "Unknown" instead of a dash to the blank cells, because I believe that a dash implies "N/A", which would not accurately represent the situation. As for your second comment, I am somewhat baffled. The notes column contains notes (such as whether someone become pope) as notes not as references. The references are also in this column because it seems poor form to create a new column for them when the notes column is already unused on 90% of the entries. Could you be more specific about what you are suggesting? Savidan 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that looks much better thanks. Regarding your question you already took care of it so nevermind I wasn't explaining it very well. I noticed a couple more things also.


 * refs 11 & 12, are exactly the same except the Maleczek, p. 111 part. I recommend you combine them and make Maleczek, p. 111 a seperate ref.
 * refs 35 & 36 are exactly the same and I recommend you combine them
 * refs 72 & 73 are exactly the same and I recommend you combine them--Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done as you suggest. Savidan 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support --Kumioko (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Should CarlosPn be considered a co-nominator? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CarlosPn is certainly a co-author, having added dozens of cardinals and sources to this list, and I have notified him of this nomination. He informed me that he was preoccupied with external cardinals at the moment, and I think that I will likely have to take the lead on any remaining comments/objections. Savidan 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I ran this article through AWB and found a couple of minor things that I fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Savidan 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent List and Images. Kensplanet TC 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support all my comments well resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.