User talk:Scorpion0422/FL audit

Head coach lists

I have to disagree with Dabomb87 that all head coach lists should be merged. While I think that shorter ones could be merged into main articles, the large ones wouldn't fit well in the main articles. Most North American sports team articles are too bloated as it is, and I really wouldn't want to see large lists added to them. What does everyone here think? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches is a bit ridiculous. It's not as if I don't like them; indeed, I spent a lot of time reviewing and editing these articles to make them consistent and smoothly formatted. I even wrote two of them. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there are two coaches listed! :-) That one can safely be moved into the main article. I was referring to lists that have 20+ coaches, which I think are a little long to be on a main article in full. Why would a two-item list be created in the first place? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the case of coach lists, the most logical place for them would be the main team article. However, in most cases, those articles are too long, so they are more justified splits. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any coach list under ten items should be merged into the main articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Jaguars list was created for a future featured topic. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian election lists

"Should be sorted in chronological order". Aren't they already? (see their original nomination pagesfor details...) Tompw (talk) (review) 13:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the most recent years should go at the bottom and the earliest ones at the top. Generally, those lists also need touching up to bring them in line with current standards. For example, longer lead, more citations, etc. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributaries of Larrys Creek

I question your inclusion of List of tributaries of Larrys Creek in this FL audit, with the rationale "I can't help but question the notability of this one. If it were List of tributaries of the Mississippi River, then maybe." I have looked at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and do not see notability listed there as a criterion. I have also looked at Wikipedia:Notability and do not see where the article (or the tributaries themselves) fail to meet this standard. My understanding is the result of previous AfDs is that all named streams are notable.

If you do not think the subject is notable, please nominate the article at WP:AfD. If the subject is notable enough to exist as an article, why can't it be a FL (if it meets the FL criteria)?

Finally, my thoughts on creating this list in the first place were three-fold.

I thought it would be better to have one article for all 42 named tributaries than 42 stub or start class articles, most of which could never be expanded.
I wanted to make a model article for listing all of the tributaries of a given stream as a useful model for other such lists (of the Mississippi, for example)
I am obsessive-compulsive about Larrys Creek ;-)

I look forward to learning your thoughts on this - if you truly believe it is not FL-worthy, please take it to WP:FLRC as soon as possible so the community can give its input. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a very good list, but I was thinking more about our newly added 3b, which goes against content forking, and I thought it could reasonably be merged with the Larrys Creek page. However, I did rethink that, which is why its not listed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Task force. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation, I assumed from your earlier comments that it was a notability issue. I appreciate the feedback, and just commented on a peer review of List of European dinosaurs that that article seems to be a fork of the FL List of dinosaurs and thus ineligible under 3b. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was somewhat concerned about the notability, since it doesn't seem to be a particularily long creek, but I changed my mind on it. And I apologize for missing your first comment. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks again for taking the time to evaluate all of these FLs and for explaining your thoughts here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol

Hi, Could you take another look at List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol (which you have listed as Grade I listed buildings in Bristol) which I've updated to the format of recently promoted FLs. Do you still think your criticisms are valid - NB I can't see how to divide it into sections.— Rod ^talk 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal

In your list you comment that Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (which is now List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal) has "No sections, no citations in the lead." It now has citations in the lead, but I'm unsure how (or why) it should be divided into sections. Advice appreciated.— Rod ^talk 19:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have any problems with List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol. As for the locks one, I added a section, but I think the lead needs expansion, and that image in the middle of it could be moved to a better spot. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've expanded the lede - where would you put the image showing a plan of all the locks?— Rod ^talk 08:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]