Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Surviving veterans of World War I/archive1

Surviving veterans of World War I
I believe that this list meets all the criteria to be considered as a Featured List, particulary as many contributors over many years have refined the subject area as much as it is likely to ever be. RichyBoy 02:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For the record this is a partial self-nomination, in somuch as there are a dozen + regular contributors to the construction of this list and I am one of those. RichyBoy 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Date linking inconsistent between "verified" section and other sections. Rmhermen 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Rmhermen 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ RichyBoy 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cannot support for the same reasons I voted delete way back then in 2005... (1) The list will delete itself and (2) there are no people from Russia or Japan - biased towards western countries. I know it's none of your fault and I sincerely say kudos for amazing work cleaning it up, but I just cannot support. BTW, suggestion, how about creating one big table? Right now there is a dozen is small tables separated by headings (current location). How about adding current location in a separate column and making one big table that can actually be sorted? Renata 05:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm dissapointed that you feel the list is biased, I would perhaps suggest reading the 3 archive volumes. There are three countries we don't know - Bulgaria, India and Japan (who (mostly) ran naval escorts, they didn't step onto French soil and is probably the reason why it's nigh on impossible to find info about any veterans). I'm very sorry that are no Russians alive to satisfy you. Also for you info a recent AfD was a snowball keep. It is a fair comment that the list will delete itself - but this could take many years and will probably be less transitory than say a list of members of the current HM Government. Work is in progress on the 'Last veterans of..' page which will be stable in the long-term, eventually. Regarding one large table, that's possible and something to think about. RichyBoy 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it should be deleted, it just has some fundamental flaws that prevent me from supporting. I understand that the list does not have any Russians not because WP does not like Russians but because there is no info about them (Russia does not prize their veterans as much as say France or US, the whole lecture on cultural differences follows, etc.) But that still does not make the list un-biased. Anyhoo, migth I suggest renaming/merging with 'Last veterans of WWI'? At least that way one of the points will go away. Renata 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support and it doesn't matter if the information is yet not available about Japanese and Russian veterans as long as you are willing to do more research on the subject. Wandalstouring 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's no problem for us. RichyBoy 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose some entries are unsourced: Orin Manfred Peterson and William Olin. Circeus 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ RichyBoy 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Circeus 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * most of the people lists I've seen go through FLC recently have had names displayed as "John Smith", not "Smith, John". If you want to sort by surname, you can use undefined for that. I don't think the list needs to be displayed by surname, if it's listed by (and sortable by) surname.
 * I would prefer this list to be one big table, as suggested by Renata. Having nine small sections for 23 people strikes me as excessive: they could be in one table with a column for country of residence.
 * It is a very good list, but I hesitate to support given these issues. BencherliteTalk 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I think surname sorting is a matter of style rather than policy - but as it seems to be cheap in terms of effort to add then it's something one of us will alter in the next couple of days, it certainly won't do any harm. I appreciate the point about a merge into one table - I'm (initially) a little more hesitant about this though - it's not that it isn't a sensible suggestion, it's that one aspect of a separate table for each country is that the count of veterans by country becomes explicit without having to tally and annotate the information by some other means; it is a key bit of information for this article. I'm not sure it would make sense to create a second table to tally the veteran count by country, it's not that straight forward as the residential place of somebody isn't neccesarily the same as the country that they fought for. Anyway, if you could let me know further thoughts we would be grateful - if you feel it must absolutely be altered we can probably conjure something. RichyBoy 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support so long as it is maintained vigilantly. --Golbez 09:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)