Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality

Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality

 * New, short (but comprehensive) list. Self-nom. Rmhermen 17:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - good list, but needs a little more work. (1) lead section needs to be longer and to follow the wiki layout guidelines; (2) notes section should/could be expanded into a separate heading; (3) references need to follow reference format, it's not enough to list them as external links. When it's done I will move to support. Renata 18:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Re (2) Notes made separate section (although some featured lists do not). Re: (1) I maintain that this is the appropriate length (1 - 2 paragraphs) for an article of this length, according to the lead section guidelines (and note that lead sections are not required by featured list criteria). I have no idea what "wiki layout guidelines" are or why this does not follow them. Re: (3), this appears to be a standard and appropriate "reference" method in featured lists. Rmhermen 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me elaborate. (1) WP:LEAD says a perfect article begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This list starts with a story about satellites that have little to do with the article. And I know it is a list and not an article, the lead is too short to give enough background. (3) there are no special standards for references on featured lists. There is one good ol' WP:CITE. Renata 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I and others maintain that there is a separate standard for references for lists. Please look at the currently featured lists and their references sections. A large number have similar Reference sections. It makes little sense in a section with 54 facts to have 40+ links to the same source. Criteria for featured lists does not even absolutely require any references, in fact. The lead section starts with a short history of satellites (which is the topic of the list) yet you simultaneously want me to remove the facts and expand it. Color me puzzled. Rmhermen
 * I encourage you to look at a large sample of currently featured lists to see the wide variety of leads and the different reference styles used. There are long ones better called articles and there are one-sentence self-referential leads. Also "references need to follow reference format, it's not enough to list them as external links." - there has never been an external links section in this article. I added accessed dates to them (again although most featured lists don't) Rmhermen 05:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it is pretty much useless to argue here, I have done it myself. See the difference? Date of access is not the key here at all. And if someone else does something in a wrong way, it does not mean you have to repeat it. My objection over lead stil stands (or I will have to do it myself once again?) Renata 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * However your changes now result in the case where the last two references do not contain any information which tells you what part of the article they are references for. Also you have the second reference as by "Ranger Assoc." which doesn't portray the information as from a British think tank and hosted on a U.S. military website. Remember that "good ol' WP:CITE" is a fairly new procedure and still not completely mature either. Rmhermen 17:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * sofixit! I did my best without knowing a thing about the sources. And general references are not pointing to specific fact in the text that was taken from that reference. There are footnotes for that. Renata 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The main issue here isn't really adding 40 footnotes to the same source (which is different from the case of List of unusual deaths nomination below, where each fact is probably referenced by a different source, see my objections there). The fact is that web references should be properly formatted. The issue at hand here is that if you print the article, all the information about the source you could have gathered by following the link is lost, and that decreases the usefulness of the list itself. Also references are a requirement of featured lists (it's even mentioned in a html comment when you edit Wikipedia:Featured list candidates!!). What is not a standard is whether the use footnotes vs. just listing the reference at the end. Finally, if standards are getting tougher (and they do at FAC!) that can only be a good thing. There's always Featured List Removal Candidates to deal with those lists that are not to standard anymore. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No actually you are wrong. From Featured list criteria: " Includes references where appropriate (my emphasis), arranged in a ==References== section and enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources)." This was created to deal with cases like Lists of lists of mathematical topics, and I don't claim that this article does not require references. However remember that that page is the place to try to change standards - not htis one. Rmhermen 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * References are required de facto until judged otherwise during the nomination (thus the change in language to "includes references where appropriate" resulting in the allowance made for List of lists of mathematical topics). So far that's the only case I know where references have not been required, and it is unlikely many others will come up soon. So unless the nominator makes a compeling case for references not to be included, they will remain a requirement. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Somewhat pedantically I feel the need to point out the fact that the EU is not a country. A footnote saying "included here for completeness" should be enough to address the contradiction with the title. Otherwise very good list. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 21:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. Rmhermen 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It needs some work. . . all it is is a large chart, it could posibbley do with a few more words. Other than that it is OK!!!! pkazz 12:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why it is a list, not an article! Rmhermen 04:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Question. Would Timeline of first orbital launches by country be a better title? If so, Timeline of astronauts by nationality could also be moved to maintain matching style. Rmhermen 04:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a better name indeed. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think launches by country and austronauts by nationality are the best choices. Renata 14:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They identify the same quality, why should we use two different names to refer to "people from ..." and "satellites from ..."? Rmhermen 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, launches don't have nationality. People do. Quite simple, really. Renata 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I just noticed I had not voted on this nom. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I have tweaked the lead to mention the title of the list -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Complete and well referenced. Oldelpaso 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Extending nomination until March 2nd. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

''Extending for one more day until March 3rd. Then the nomination should be closed regardless of the result.'' -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)