Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russian Booker Prize/archive3


 * 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 21:01, 9 February 2013.

Russian Booker Prize

 * Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 12:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was recently copyedited and the table was expanded, now including all nominees. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the article is great and Tomcat7 has done a lot of good work on it. However, I disagree that this is a list, rather it is an article. It should be considered for FAC. If it were a list, it would be called List of Russian Booker Prize winners, placing the emphasis on the list. By making it a list article, it falls under the rules of lists which limits what can be done with it per the list MoS. It restricts the future growth of the article by future editors who may want to expand it in currently unforeseeable ways. To see how this should be done, see List of Nobel laureates in Literature (featured list) and Nobel Prize in Literature (primary article). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully disagree. We have a lot of lists that have more prose than list, for example Marine Corps Brevet Medal and Boden Professor of Sanskrit. I don't see how this should be an exception for that list. The second section is just a summary of the table.--Tomcat (7) 19:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And there is no reason to create a separate article if it can be easily merged with the actual article. List of Russian Booker Prize winners would be incorrect as nominees are also included. --Tomcat (7) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Take a look at the MOS for lists: Manual_of_Style/Lists. It says "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list". That's it, a block of text at the top and then the list. There are no sub-sections in list articles, if you strictly follow the MOS (which a Featured List should do). Ok not every featured list article strictly follows the MOS, but they are not great examples to follow. Further, look at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, it says "list articles.. the main components of which are one or more embedded lists.." What is the "main component" here? It seems like the text itself is a pretty large portion, as you said yourself, "more prose than list". And the prose could be expanded (controversies etc) and will continue to grow year on year. Arguably the main component of the article is not the list of winners, but the history, background and other information about the award itself, which deserves its own full-fledged regular encyclopedia article.
 * Per the MOS for lists you link, I advise you to re-read it: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)". Please stop deceiving our readers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's says the list may be divided. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It also says that to assist the reader we can add a "separate introductory section" if required. Read the whole page (for instance, the section entitled "Lead sections in stand-alone lists" where a helpful example is provided!), not just cherry pick from it to suit your postition.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SAL, the nominator is not to blame if there is no main article. He has created a very good main article. It's up to you (or others) to trump it with a featured article to supersede this attempt.  Do something about it or just enjoy the fact we have people making high quality articles, just called FLs rather than FACs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a main article worth of content here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2. I'm not saying this to be a stickler about the rules. It can create a real problem down the road, once a list becomes featured it's difficult to change without de-featuring because the consensus of the featured decision holds weight in keeping it as it is. So, if an editor wanted to greatly expand the prose content in certain ways, they might be prevented from doing so because it must conform to certain list MoS guidelines as a Featured List (main component being the list, the single lead section, etc). By making it a list article, the list portion is given priority and over the prose portion which then suffers under the yoke of list MoS. This is not a problem in many cases because the prose portion is static or doesn't need to be very long, but for some subjects it is a problem. The solution is simple and well established, follow the Nobel Prize example. BTW the "winners" in the title is no problem, titles are just placeholders, the lead section can say it also includes shortlisted authors (and other stuff).
 * We'll cross the bridge when we come to it. Alternatively we create a naff main article (like Orange Prize) and then link to the featured list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 3. Looking at the list portion there are some problems and areas of improvement. There could be pictures of winning authors (see for example List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners), lists of judges for each year, and a notes section. When I click on what links here it doesn't look like every author and book links back to the award page, for example Leonid Yuzefovich mentions he was shortlisted but there is no back link - I assume no one has systematically gone through and added back-links and references. I also think the format of the table isn't very good (for featured content), and might recommend following the format at List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners. Finally and most serious, the references in the table are all primary source to the award website itself. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. All winners and shortlisted need secondary sources to newspapers, magazines unconnected with the prize itself. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you move this massive block of text to the talk page of this FLC and summarise it here? This is seriously prejudicing any genuine review against the criteria this list may get (as opposed to this kind of "standard" oppose).  Sure, have your say, and please do so effusively, but perhaps just "oppose" here and then link us to your essay on the talk page.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion of the article's status as a list is relevant to the FLC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not when you provide no suitable alternative. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do note that this para is the only one which actually includes assistance to improve the list, perhaps we can work on these items. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment User:Green Cardamom really doesn't like these kinds of lists (previous experience at the Orange Prize goes to show that, where a really weak, stub-like article was created for the sake of it, just to then link back to the featured list which covered most, if not all of the aforementioned stub). It's a shame. My opinion is that until a FAC quality article about the prize exists, there's absolutely no reason to preclude a list article which meets all our criteria from being nominated. I'd also like to understand what being classed as a list "limits what can be done with it per the list MoS"? Specifically. There is no restriction whatsoever to future editors, if someone can expand it to FA quality, we'll happily stand by and let it be done. This list is hardly of the prominence of the Nobel Prize mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not true, in fact you did great work on the Orange Prize, and I continue to use that as an example of how to make a literary list (the list portion), see my recommendation above. The problem is the article's prose section (a 4000 word 6 paragraph lead!) is too long and should be merged into the main encyclopedia article, but that will require de-featuring first, a separate issue. Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the Russian Booker Prize FLC? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So we should just make additional sections. Easy.  MOS allows it.  No problem.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I could respond but it has nothing to do with the Russian Book Prize FLC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much none of what you've written has anything to do with the FLC, it has to do with the fact that you keep claiming there's a main article worth writing, but then don't do anything about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as Rambling Man pointed out, the Nobel Prize should not be compared with a national award. The Novel prizes are quite simply THE awards, and we should not be surprised when they receive so much coverage around the world. The Russian Booker Prize was recently established, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Russia is slowly recovering from totalitarism, and new authors are little-known, which is why there is an additional winners section, a good suggestion proposed in the last nomination. The Nobel prizes were awarded since 1900 to people worldwide. Information for the Russian Booker Prize is limited, even in Russian sources. What I could find were newspaper articles that have a few more information on its first ceremony. I could not find any more information on its creation, history, judgement, etc. What I may add is a criticism section, but it not only specializes on that award. I don't think the Orange Prize is a good example, as List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners has more prose and is more comprehensive than the "main" article. A merger would be a good option, and I may propose one in future (but that is now irrelevant here). I agree that it can be delisted from featured status anytime. I hope Green understands the situation. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to nominate other lists in near future, so it would be nice if the opposer would re-review his vote to avoid having a stalled page. Other people are free to suggest what they think. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the fundamental question "is this a list, or an article" can come up during FLC's, it has come up before in other FLCs unrelated to me, it is a basic issue with how we structure things. TRM says it's my burden to prove it is an article by writing it as such. And I could do that, easily, just move some text around so it looks more like an article, it would take 5 minutes. However I don't think your opinions would change. But look at the first sentence of Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists which defines what a list-article is: "Stand-alone lists are articles the main components of which are one or more embedded lists". So is the list here the main component? I don't believe so - the main component is the prose section, which is about the award itself. The article is about the award, not the winners. They are not the same thing. The list of winners is an ancillary and even optional section. The description of the award is the main component - not the list of winners. It's backasswards to make the list of winners the primary component of an article about the award! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this dreary pointed attempt to whack us with picking-and-choosing one or two odd sentences from one specific guideline of the MOS is really tiresome. Like the Orange award, we managed to prove that we'd end up with a really weak main article and a decent list.  That doesn't benefit anyone.  Nor does this.  Write your own Russian Booker Prize article, we'll keep this article going at FLC as a featured list candidate.  After all, you are the expert in these matters, right?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the first sentence in the primary MoS for standalone lists: it's the very definition of what a stand alone list is! If calling that an "odd sentence" is your best response you clearly don't have a response. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said to you before, the MOS also uses a very handy example of List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre to demonstrate that your assertion is entirely incorrect. It's not your fault the MOS is inconsistent but you really should know better than to just use one truncated sentence to try to prove your own position.  Bad form, dreary and a waste of a lot of people's time.  Please write the main article, we'll go from there, and then we'll see another stubbish main article and a well-written featured list to accompany it.  After you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man, I don't need to write a main article, it already exists. It's up to you or whoever to create a list article under a different name, if that is what you or anyone else wants to do. Also, using the example article in the MoS to trump the explicit wording of the MoS doesn't fly. The MoS is quite clear defining what a list article is. If the example contradicts then a better example should be found, though I'm not sure the example even contradicts in this case - most of the material in those sub sections is about explaining the list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamom, where does this main article exist, other than this list? By the way, by "main component", what do you think MOS means by that?  The number of bytes?  The number of words?  The amount you have to scroll down the page?   What part of the MOS is contravened here?  Your oppose is noted, now we'll just crack on and continue with the FLC.  The MoS contradicts itself, but it clearly allows for additional paragraphs of prose to be added to assist in describing the content of the list, that's the end of it.  Thanks for your expert contributions here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Main component" is not a mathematical count, there is no way to quantify it that way. What is meant is the main focus of the article, the main point and idea of the article. I don't believe MoS contradicts itself because most of the prose in List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre is specific to the list, it's meta information needed to understand the list. Unlike this article where the prose section is entirely independent of the list, it's about the Award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, enough is enough. You complain about the scope of the article yet you refuse to do anything about it.  This is for discussing FLCs, it's not a soapbox for you to expertly demonstrate your personal preference to pick and choose parts of sentences of guidelines in the MOS to promote your particular position, so I suggest we leave it here.   Thanks again for your interest.  Incidentally, your "interpretation" of the MOS has potential ramifications for the whole FL process, not exclusive to this list.  I suggest you bring the issue up at WT:FLC to allow the community to help you, rather than focus on just this one list.  Having said that, once again looking at other text in the MOS regarding standalone lists, it says "A well written lead section is of particular importance to stand-alone lists featuring little or no prose in their article body.", which strongly implies that standalone lists can (and maybe even should) have more prose in their article body.   Hmmm......  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a list article can have multiple sections, if required. So long as the list is the "main component" of the article. Main component meaning conceptually the primary focus and purpose of the article. There's no contradiction in the MoS. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Phew, so the only issue you have here is that the list isn't long enough to be, in your mind, the "main component"? How odd.  Still, we got to the bottom of it eventually didn't we?!  Moving on now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I say that? I said: a list article is one where the primary purpose and focus of the article is the list. It's a conceptual question - ask yourself: what is this article for? The length of the list doesn't matter. The length of the prose doesn't matter. The number of sections doesn't matter. It's simple common sense supported by the MOS. Here's an example of two articles: Charles Dickens bibliography and Robert Louis Stevenson. Both contain lists. One is a list article. One is not. Can you determine, and how come. I realize you would like to "move on" and even close this FLC down, but the fact is I am arguing from a rules-based position, supported by the rules, a rule which is supported by other people as well. I opened a rules clarification question at the MOS and have received one reply so far that supports this position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying (or otherwise?) the FLC project of your discussion at the MOS talkpage which clearly may have a significant impact on FLC. As I said before, you argued this position with the Orange Prize, and we ended up with a really pathetic stub-like main article and a featured lists of the winners.  There seems no benefit to our readers to have this split, despite your assertions and pick-and-choose rules approach.  Now you've started your discussion there, I suggest this side debate is capped and we can carry on improving Wikipedia's lists, and you can carry on picking particular sections of sentences of the MOS to further your expert position.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Orange Prize is a separate issue and I'd be happy to discuss strategy for that elsewhere but this is a FLC for the Russian Booker Prize. As for wider implications that is not my concern, my concern is this FLC. Why do you keep trying to discuss things unrelated to this FLC? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because your point is a general one. And the Orange Prize is a good example of where you got your expert opinion enshrined in a poor "copy-and-paste" main stub article and a featured list which still contained most, if not all the pertinent points.  You're trying to do the same here.  Why not knock up a sandbox of your vision of the potential FA you see in the Russian Booker Prize and then we'll discuss whether it merits its own stub or should, for the benefit of the reader, be encapsulated here until such a time that the main article would make a decent standalone article?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't trust the process. Because you say things and keep changing your position. On the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists discussion you said the prose has to "move beyond a stub". Well the text we have is already beyond a stub. Then above you say it has to be a "potential FA".. but then go on to say it has to be a "decent" standalone article. So the bar keeps changing .. and it's not backed up by any rule, it's sort of like your the authority who decides. When I actually looked at the MOS rules, it says something entirely different from what your saying. There's nothing in the rules that says any article can be a list article so long as it contains 1. a list and 2. a stub prose section. Where does it say that? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The text we have would be a stub on its own. We need to introduce subjects fully so a lot, if not all of the current text would be used in the list to introduce the subject.  By the way, you're at "featured" lists here, not just "lists", so you need to understand we want these lists to be excellent, comprehensive and informative to the reader without having to pop back to a main stub (or, if you wish, C-class article) to read a couple of paragraphs they could quite easily cope with at the start of this list.  Do you have a sandbox with the standalone Russian Booker Prize knocked up or are you just here to cause trouble by saying "no, it can't be a featured list and the reason is, it should be a stub and a crappy list, and no, I'm not writing the stub, I'm just telling you it should be a stub and a crappy list per our MOS"?  Not quite sure what you're trying to achieve other than a degree in wiki-lawyering.  Have you stopped for a moment to consider what is actually better for our audience right now?  Honestly?  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole reason I'm arguing this is what is best for our audience, it is not wikilawyering for the sake of it. I'm not going into here since this is a FLC for the Russian Booker and you keep changing the subject and we already have separate discussions going elsewhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wikilawyering for the sake of it, there's no benefit to our readers to create a stub main article and then reducing the lead of this FLC to nothing just because you think it should be that way. Solution (1 - yours) allow a reader to switch between a stub main article including a blank section pointing a featured list, and a featured list which, by the current standards, has to have a comprehensive lead etc with quality control (2 - mine) allow a reader to get everything in one place as long as there's insufficient decent prose to justify a main article.  By the way, you're the one who started the discussion at MOS without notifying anyone here, and you're the one who broke the terms of Creative Commons by copying-and-pasting all over other editors work and, by default, claiming attribution for it.  That's why it's now become a forum shopping outing..... Bad form.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Look if you're going to take that form that I'm operating in bad faith it's pointless to have a discussion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're pushing MOS fragments to ensure we get stubs and lower quality lists. You want to do that? Carry on, but not in this garden. RFC it so the world can join in and see that you're not actually helping our readers in your pursuit. And hopefully you can stop using various forums to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol no, I am arguing from the rules, unlike yourself who makes stuff up as you go. You still haven't provided any rules to back up your position. That's not wikilawyering, it's a defense against people like yourself who treat Wikipedia like their own private garden to do whatever they want. There's no "fragments" being pushed, it's the first sentence of the MOS and a core concept. It's is you who are creating a lower Wikipedia and pushing people around with unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. For example telling me we can't have this conversation here and we have to start an RFC to decide the issue - that's bullshit . This topic has come up before and it's been decided in FAC FLCs. It's not complicated for consensus to emerge in a FAC FLC if a particular article is a list or not. An RFC is not needed. If you think there is some larger issue that's your truck to carry, maybe you need to start an RFC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (edit: fixed FAC -> FLC typo after TRM's comment below - GC)
 * Seriously, I'm asking you politely to now centralise any such discussion you wish to have on this. Calling "bullshit" is unnecessary, maybe you need to remove yourself from this discussion and relax a bit.  You seem to be confusing FACs with FLCs.  Please, what is wrong with giving a reader the best thing right now, a fully comprehensive article with a list of winners?  This encyclopedia isn't about you or me, it's about the readers.  You've lost the plot, creating stub main articles just because that's what MOS suggests is pointless.  I'll leave it to you now here, I'm done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to repeat Rambling Man's proposal to discuss this elsewhere if needed. Clearly the MOS is outdated, and no need to stick so heavily to that guideline (remember, WP:IAR and WP:PILLAR). Cardamom, you state that this list should be about the winners and a different page should be created for the award, but clearly there is no reason to create a separate list because it fits under one article. Also I am curious why you took particularly this nomination and not other similar nominations. I suggest making an RFC to make a final decision for all such lists. Just a reminder that a split won't never happen. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "and not other similar nominations" .. because I don't follow FLC. This is the first FLC I've ever participated in. Also I've been editing this article on and off since 2009 - its been on my watchlist and so I saw your update on the article talk page about it being nominated for FLC, so I came over and voiced my concern - do you have a problem with people objecting to your FLC? Your response has been that we should ignore the MOS because the consensus that wrote it is "outdated" (though certainly not in my view). However I don't believe the MOS is outdated I think there is wisdom in what it says and that certain editors are flagrantly and systemically ignoring that consensus. Editors like myself have the right to object to an article being classified as a list, and the FLC is the place that objection is voiced. I agree with you it is logical to keep the winners and prose in the same article under normal situation, however if you're going to escalate the list to the level of featured content then there are additional factors that come into play that need to be considered.
 * Also, I listed half a dozen other problems with the list, unrelated to this topic (see #3 in the collapsed section above). You apparently have decided to ignore those things thus far. Apparently you are not only ignoring the MOS, but ignoring the core rules of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing this article on and off since 2009 and so it's been on my watchlist and I saw your talk page update about the FLC. This is the first FLC I've ever participated in on Wikipedia. I don't follow the FLC world so who knows what else goes on, not my problem or interest. I'm interested in this article and this FLC. You and TRM seem to be out make this into some larger issue. As for the MOS, whatever. If you and others feel comfortable ignoring the MOS there's not much one person can do to stop you. I'd sure like to see what rules you follow. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Tomcat (7) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

'''Ignoring that huge mess above.... comments'''
 * "English Chief Executive Sir Michael Caine" would more likely link Caine than CEO.
 * Done


 * "short list" or "shortlist"?
 * Done


 * "Since 2011 the new sponsor" -> no need for "new".
 * Removed


 * Merge third and fourth lead paras.
 * Merged


 * " winning nothing" -> "no wins".
 * Changed


 * "was nominate five times, more than any other" -> nominated and should end with a full stop.
 * Fixed


 * Avoid squashing text between images.
 * Why is first item in list 1998 (Kharitonov)? instead of 1992?
 * Fixed that

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources The list of winners lacks reliable secondary sources per the rules of WP:Verifiability. The Rambling Man once said in another featured literary award list-article:
 * I insist on decent third-party sources (rather than lazily relying on the official website) (The Rambling Man)

I agree with the The Rambling Man and don't understand why he would change his position just for this FLC. And that is what the core rule of WP:V says: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources". According to WP:PRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". Further, "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." The policy says "be cautious about basing large passages on them". In this article the entire list of winners is based on a primary source which is "to be avoided". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are enough secondary sources, which all back the winners. --Tomcat (7) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And if the official website has all the winners and nominees, there is no good reason adding redundant secondary sources. Furthermore there are not enough of them. --Tomcat (7) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No good reason .. other than the core rule of verifiability. There is one secondary source for a winner. The rest are about runner-ups and the booker prize of the decade. That means out of 20 years, only 1 year has a secondary source, or 95% primary source. If there are no secondary sources available, maybe this content is not up to Wikipedia's standards of the best it has to offer? No one's trying to deny you from making featured content, but sometimes the sources just aren't available - though they may be in the future, or may be in print form not readily accessible from the Internet - have you tried searching the commercial databases like GALE etc? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PRIMARY also says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". The primary sources here are reliably published, just as those primary sources in, say, List of Nobel laureates in Literature, are reliably published.  My position 14 months ago was to use third-party sources and, where possible, that's still the aim.  However, as long as the sources have been "reliably published" and since none are promoting any kind of "position", simply reporting bare facts, I can (and the gudelines most certainly allow) primary sources to be used.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PRIMARY policy also says "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]". This article is 95% primary on reporting the winners. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature probably needs to be reviewed on these grounds as well since it was promoted in 2008. There are many reasons to use secondary sources. Secondary sources do exist. You have not searched the commercial databases. Here for example are just two I quickly found:
 * Walden, George. "Russian Booker." TLS. Times Literary Supplement 5307 (2004): 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
 * Tait, Arch. "The awarding of the third Russian Booker prize." The Modern Language Review 92.3 (1997): 660+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
 * I don't have time to go through them all, but if you haven't even looked for secondary sources that clearly exist, why should this article be promoted to featured status? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly I found much better sources, no need to do any searches. If the official website has posted them, then other sources just repeat the information. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources do more than that. They have original commentary, review and other information related to the years winners that's not found in the primary. The secondaries also provide a reference for adding sources to the author and book articles that link back to this article (another thing that still has not been done). Also WP:PRIMARY is not saying to use primaries instead of secondaries. In fact it says that secondaries are the preferred type of source, and since we have them available, why aren't you using them? (BTW you can use both as they each have a place and purpose). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

From the policy, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." In other words, the use of primary sources here which are used to prove bare facts is entirely compliant with the MOS. Your tagging of the primary sources used here was inappropriate, and your insistence of the replacement of them with third-party sources is your opinion, your preference, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources provide more than straightforward statements of facts. They have original commentary, review and other information related to the years winners that's not found in the primary source. And as you said before:
 * I insist on decent third-party sources (rather than lazily relying on the official website) (The Rambling Man)
 * It's "lazy" to rely on primary sources. It's a poor quality article without secondary sources for the winners. You've cherry picked a single sentence out of the policy page and ignored its context and everything else said on that page, a logical fallacy; the general concept on Wikipedia is that we rely on secondary sources, as PRIMARY says: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat: There is no reason to have secondary sources; I won't waste my time adding some redundancies. Your oppose is meaningless. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, GC, you agree the use of primary sources here is in accordance with the MOS. Thank you.  I didn't write the MOS, so why you insist on repeating my comment is beyond me.  The MOS clearly says for simple facts, primary sources can be used.  Yet you now say we can't use them.  How odd. perhaps you should rethink your position!  (You  may wish to note that finding third-party sources for English language prizes like the Booker would be far easier than this prize, for instance). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to rethink your position:
 * use third-party sources and, where possible, that's still the aim (The Rambling Man)
 * It is possible and it is the aim. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do we obey the MOS or TRM? Stick to the MOS or not?  Get a grip please.  Your ever-shifting position is baffling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ever-shifting position", how ironic. It's a policy not MOS, maybe you need to read the rules more carefully, PRIMARY says: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. PRIMARY says in the first sentence: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Cherry picking a single sentence and ignoring the spirit of how Wikipedia works is one thing, but to do it as an example of the best and brightest featured content? Contested. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this time it really is my final word. The MOS says we can use primary sources for substantiating very simple facts (e.g. winner names) but to avoid primary sources for "interpretations" etc, fine, no problem here. Both you and I prefer third-party sources (although many current third-party sources use Wikipedia as their source without attribution, but that's a whole 'nother argument), agreed, my position I adopted 14 months ago at Booker, and the position I hold are compatible, avoid lazy sourcing, but, once again, if it complies with the MOS/PRIMARY, then we're good. You say that PRIMARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". PRIMARY goes on to say "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". So that's good news isn't it? I think we can agree (unless you're into conspiracy theories) that the official site of the award would be capable of reliably publishing the names of the winners, along with the year they won the award? Maybe you disagree. In any case, you first claimed this wasn't an appropriately formatted list, then you made fallacious claims that once a list was promoted, a main article could never be made (your "frozen list" paradigm), and now it's a dispute over the interpretation and implementation of PRIMARY. I won't be back here as I've wasted far too much time dancing to your tune. I feel truly sorry for the nominator who has put stacks of work into this, just to see a series of drive-by objections, shifting like the sands. Totally depressing. P.S. Guess we'll be seeing plenty more of you here..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me, the problem is the article itself. The SAL was the first objection, but since it's a rare objection (not unknown, but rare) I'm unsure how it will be received. Regardless, the list has more common problems which have been detailed in good faith, and hope you assume good faith. The problem with PRIMARY is the second objection. You are right this whole conversation is a huge investment of time and energy, it could have been better spent by simply improving the article - do the right thing as you have said repeatedly in the past, "I insist on decent third-party sources" and, "use third-party sources where possible". It is not a trivial point, the third party sources contain a lot of important information not found in the primary (and also use the primary if you want to). In the end I contest this list is of featured quality (assuming it's even considered a SAL) without third party sources for the winners (which sources do exist). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gah. SAL objection?  Seemingly no longer valid, unless you have more to add (i.e. you still want a stub main article, which we can easily do, let me know).   PRIMARY?  We've dealt with that, PRIMARY actively allows the current use of primary sources.  You haven't been able to provide evidence to the contrary.  The PRIMARY sources here state facts, in accordance with the policy.  Third party sources adding more to the article is a "preference" and cannot, in any way, be considered a valid position of opposition.  Now then, you've spent a huge amount of time here, are you going to move onto the other literary lists which use primary sources?  We absolutely need to know because, if so, you really must centralise this discussion.  We can't spend all this energy on each and every literary list you decide to show up at and provide confusing messages.  Please, please, please start a central discussion somewhere relevant about the use of primary sources, as I've already pointed you too, we have a Nobel list that uses primary sources considerably, and we have a current FLC (which you've yet to comment on) which is of a similar nature.  Your consistent comments would be appreciated, or better, a discussion about the appropriate use of primary sources somewhere central is advised.  After all, your position doesn't just affect FLC, it affects FAC and all other promoted content which use primary sources (despite the fact that PRIMARY actively allows it).   Please don't allow your (and my) preference to replace all primary sources with third-party sources cloud your judgement.  That's our preference and in no way can influence the criteria for FAs or FLs.  Unless you take the debate to the projects.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my objections to this FLC are reasoned and rationale, even if you disagree with them. They may have application to some other articles, but that doesn't invalidate the point for this article. We don't have to solve the world top down, if that were the case nothing would ever get accomplished on Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia is very much a bottom up approach of consensus building, so give the process time and a chance, even if you don't like it or in a hurry.
 * Look comprehensive coverage is one of the criteria of FLC. Comprehensiveness is purely subjective, our preferences can and do matter in FLC. Outside sources discussing the winners is part of comprehensive coverage. To illustrate: if the award presenter is the only one given coverage, it gives a false impression. Of course the presenter would think the winner is best, but does everyone else? There are some years when the winners are panned by the critics (for example). Yet, we would never know that without secondary sources, we would be looking through rose-colored glasses of the primary source. It's not comprehensive coverage to give only the presenters view of the winners. Anyway I'd sure like to give this conversation a rest for a bit and perhaps let other people comment, and not keep repeating the same positions over and over. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I said that there is no need for more secondary sources if there are already primary sources. And coverage won't increase if I put some more secondary sources. Secondary sources should be used if the claim is controversial or disputed, but not if citing a plain list of nominees and winners. The official website is a trused site that won't introduce any controversial errors. Furthermore, you surely want secondary sources for the English titles, but finding some would be almost impossible because some works were re-released under different names or their English translation are unknown. And yes, you still did not comment about the purpose of secondary sources if they just repeat the same information over and over, like all your comments on this page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 01:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't need them for every year, but where the sources exist they should be included. It's crazy anyone would be so insistent about not including known secondary sources and only using primary sources for the table. Is this Wikipedia or reverse-world with everything done upside down. And I just explained in the previous paragraph an illustrative example why secondary sources are useful. You don't seem to get it that it's more than just reporting who won. It's critical commentary by outside professionals about the award, the winners, etc.. even The Rambling Man agrees they are the best way to do things, he said "your (and my) preference to replace all primary sources with third-party sources". Though we don't need to "replace" the primary, rather in addition to the primary source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not done, because they don't add critical commentary at all, but just repeat the information. And again, please carefully read what I wrote above. "Don't need them for every year, but where the sources exist they should be included" does not make sense; where would you like to have them now? You said for the whole table.--Tomcat (7) 11:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Either the nomination will be blanked and restarted, or withdrawn and archived. --Tomcat (7) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's your nom, we can restart it, or archive it and you can renominate it in due course? Your choice.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel there will be any progress, and the page will be likely stalled, so I have decided to withdraw this nomination. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


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