Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of mammals of Canada/archive1

List of mammals of Canada
A useful, comprehensive and well-constructed list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SriMesh (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sure a few more references could be added to this. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 02:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's just fine. Compare our various FL list of birds, which often have less references than that.Circeus 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, but this one supposedly encompasses all mammals, so there should be a few more available, if not for redundancy. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 12:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Poor choice of header structure: at least one, if not two levels are unnecessary.
 * WAY overdetailed taxonomic treatment: Arctiodactylae alone has 11 species and 27 bullet points. that's simply ridiculous!
 * If List of mammals of Korea is taken as a match, this has no chances at all in it's current state. (I'd like to note that I intend to edit that list to replace headers with table-wide cells à la List of Anuran families)
 * Circeus 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: header structure needs heavy cleanup. Either streamline it into the lead or put it on top of the lists. Sephiroth BCR (Converse)  Sephiroth BCR 04:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The format could be greatly improved, with the Korea list being a better example than the bird lists (which are very undersourced). Note 1 is a complete no-no. You can't use Wikipedia as a source (for names/taxonomy), nor should the article even refer to Wikipedia (see WP:SELF). There's no need either, when your sources contain the details. If the IUCN is your main source, use it for the taxonomy and name. Colin°Talk 12:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose this shouldn't be featured. I created all these lists from a script as starting points for anybody who wanted to do further work (as the lists of mammals by country ran to about 20 before with the normal country bias). A largely machine-generated list being promoted would make a mockery of people's hard work on other lists. A little work has been done, but this is still largely the auto-generated list, so I'd personally prefer if this nom was withdrawn. In reply to some of the comments above:
 * The level of taxonomic detail must surely be down to personal preference (these lists are based on the layout of the lists of mammals). I don't see anything about whether you like bullets or tables in the FL criteria
 * Wikipedia is used as a source for the names to provide continuity between the article titles and the lists, rather than having a different name (or scientific name only when we have a common name in the article) in the list. The IUCN often provides a number of common names, so these were checked against the existing articles and the best matches found. If we have the article title wrong we should change it and update the lists. The footnote is there to explain how the the lists were generated, not to provide an authority. It isn't a self-reference any more than a wikilink is, the references give the references.
 * As to providing redundancy in the references: Backup references? In case one of the references gets stuck in traffic? I'm not sure I understand. Yomangani talk 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, dokey, I withdraw the nom. I thought it fit the Criteria mentioned. This wasn't a self nom...I didn't work on the article, just came across it, and thought it was very well done compared to other lists I have seen on Wikipedia and compared to other articles about fauna of Canada on Wikipedia so far...  SriMesh |  talk  04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)