Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches in Moscow/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 not promoted by Giants2008 03:26, 15 December 2012.

List of churches in Moscow

 * Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have hidden the pictures which hindered its promotion. Regards. Tomcat (7) 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please don't take offense when I say, I don't think you fully understand the problem. I don't either. I just spent several hours of my Sunday trying to find a conclusive answer to whether media files such as this one with its File: page in its current state satisfy relevant policies. I'm not a lawyer. I'm frustrated and my head is starting to hurt. If your solution to reviewers finding possible copyright problems is going to be to simply hide the files in the article (presumably for somebody else to solve the problem), then I suggest hiding them all and hiding them now, because the lack of freedom of panorama in Russia may be a problem for all of them. Alternatively, you could do something to convince my fellow reviewers and me that there are no copyright problems, either by pointing us to a relevant policy, guideline or discussion, or by tagging the files with Template:3-D in PD. Regards,  Good raise  22:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_46. They are all fine except the hidden one. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to follow your reasoning. But I can't.  Good raise  12:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have asked here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria.  Good raise  15:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do what Aslepias recommened, though it is not really needed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments


 * "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." is that true? If so, that's not a good sign, as the actual featured list criteria calls for completeness, so it doesn't meet featured list criteria right now then
 * According to WP:FL?. "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." There are several lists that are actually incomplete, but still FLs.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, these are the "notable" churches, OK. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no "notable" churches. The lead states which buildings are excluded from the list.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlink "church" per WP:OVERLINK
 * No, since there are two different types of churches. Also this guideline can be ignored, actually.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We all know what a "church" is, and that is WP:OVERLINK. It can't be ignored because it is part of the featured list criteria. "It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
 * No, we don't know what "a" church is. It is either the congregation or the building, so it should be linked.--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "tallest Orthodox church" link all of that, not just "tallest" so readers understand
 * Can you explain how does it improve anything? Surely if the reader sees the link, he will click on it.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but maybe there's the possible that someone may believe that the link is actually to "tallest", not the tallest buildings in this case.
 * What?--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry lol. See above now. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Avoid bold links per WP:ACCESS in table, you need to add  to the table's coding
 * Please read the lead. Bolding is useful to highlight the patron saint or the feast day.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, avoid all bold links, as per WP:BADEMPHASIS and WP:ACCESS, and replace with a symbol, like a dagger. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you want exactly? It highlights the patron saint or the feast, as stated. What symbols? Dagger for what?--Tomcat (7) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It should not be in bold per the above guidelines. Your required to replace with something else in the tables. TBrandley 15:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done, since it is not a requirement. See Five pillars. I should not stick to rules and don't always need to follow them. The page does not explain why boldface should not be used in this case. I would reconsider if it would benefit, but it seems like it doesn't.--Tomcat (7) 16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a requirement per the featured list criteria. If this isn't replace, then I'll have to oppose the list for not meeting the criteria of Manual of Style. I'm aware of the five pillars, and that doesn't apply in this case. TBrandley 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Goodraise about image concerns
 * Yes? Then explain it to me, do not just agree.--Tomcat (7) 11:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I agree" with his input, and thus that should be addressed before I'm willing to support. TBrandley 15:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Would suggest adding an "—" em-dash to those churches that have no images
 * Would remove "List of" from section headers and table captions because we already know this is a list

TBrandley 22:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment suggest you withdraw the list until the serious issue of misuse of images under the lack of freedom of panorama in Russia is resolved. Also, debating whether you can be bothered to meet the MOS or not is a non-starter, it's one of the criteria. By all means, IAR and quote five pillars, but that won't lead to a promotion at FLC in this case I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Note if Tomcat7 is not going to be able to address these issues or worse, not be able to spend time on Wikipedia, suggest this is closed as unsuccessful until such a time its re-nomination may be more fruitful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.