Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1900 Summer Olympics medal table/archive2

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 Matthewedwards 03:49, 22 May 2009 [1].

1900 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list because... the one I just nominated got shot down for length and is about to be merged. However, this one will not be affected by the medal count mergings and is of good quality. It was nominated once before, and I think pretty much all of the issues raised during the nomination have been resolved. Geraldk (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support With 21 entries it's long enough. I see no problems here, except to lowercase the names of sports. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and good catch. Switched them to lowercase letters. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't think "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title" is necessary—Chris! _ct 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if we assume our readers have a functional brain, that is. It's gone. Geraldk (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how note b starts with "Also ..."—Chris! _ct 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this gets promoted, will it be the smallest WP:FL? I know that the table is long enough, but there's no additional info in this page other than those 11 more countries that received medals. There is a FL that's longer and bigger than this one and it is about to be removed because of its size (click here). So, how does this list pass WP:WIAFL's 3b criterion?--Crzy cheetah 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think List of United States Presidents who died in office is the smallest FL we have. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically, 1900 medal table is smaller (in size) than that one.--Crzy cheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you're focusing on the latter part of 3b, the question of whether it could 'reasonably' be included in another article, since that seems to be the point of discussion on the No Doubt article. It seems that the long-standing consensus on WP:OLY is not to include more than 10 places in the main article. In the absence of WP:WIAFL including an objective standard for length, it only makes sense to me that one would defer to the wikiproject with the most experience on a certain topic and/or the standing wikipedia tradition. Otherwise, the length issue would be utterly and completely subjective. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, what you're saying is that since 21 countries instead of 10 are listed in the table, it must be in a separate list? Does it really make sense to you? It doesn't, to me.
    All I know is that these Olympic medal tables look eerily similar to those awards pages that Gary was producing last year. I have a feeling that if start promoting these Olympic tables, we'll see them at WP:FLRC in about 6-8 months.--Crzy cheetah 04:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know about that one, these pages have existed for several years, whereas Gary created most of the ones he nominated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does that have to do with what I said? I never said these medal pages were created recently.--Crzy cheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What I meant was that it is different because most of the awards lists were created solely so they could be FLCs, whereas in this case, it's improving on existing content. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I'm saying is that there is no objective standard for length in the featured list criteria. Until there is, yes, I feel a list that has 21 items is of length significant enough to be a stand-alone list and that the WP:OLY standards tend to override inexact concerns about length (and therefore that this list is eligible for FL - I wouldn't have nominated it otherwise). Frankly, if the rule becomes that 21 items is too short, then there are a lot of current FLs that would need to be reviewed. The only difference here is that the medal counts include single numbers for each entry and so the information in each individual cell is not quite as long as some. And FYI: There are already 8 olympic medal table lists with FL, though one of them (1896, which is significantly shorter than this one) is likely to be merged per previous discussions here and at WP:OLY. Geraldk (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It really doesn't matter whether there are 2, 3, or 20 items listed; what matters the most is the content. Right now, there is not much content other than those 21 countries to split it from the main page. We will never put any arbitrary numbers in the criteria because there are so many factors involved.--Crzy cheetah 02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought about this, and I'm going to oppose on 3b for this list. I feel it doesn't meet the "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" part of the criteria. I am aware some people will consider this significantly above the 10 item threshold, but this list really doesn't provide much information. The top 10 are all ready included in the main article, and I don't think it would make it too large if the other 11 were to be included. There also isn't much prose to be merged across. I realise that eventually medal tables to become long enough (i.e. I have no problem with 2008 being split), but I don't consider this list to have enough material to "exemplify our very best work". If you are interested in my opinion, I would probably advocate merging tables up to around 1936. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the cut-off, then? Geraldk (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By which I mean - what is the exact number of entries that make a list pass 3b. For example, the 2002 Winter Olympics medal table only has 24 items, and the 2006 Winter Olympics medal table 26. Is it 22? 23? Both of those are featured lists, and have been for some time. In other words, as I was saying to Cheetah, just looking at a list and saying 'not enough' is utterly arbitrary. If you guys feel there should be some lower limit to the number of items in a table, fine, but then that needs to be spelled out clearly in WIAFL. Otherwise, the decision to support or oppose is little more than random. As to the list not providing much information, well, I suspect that's what this really boils down to. Because a number of medals is a single number, and not, as on some lists, a name of a video game or career earnings of some poker player, it looks like it's less information, when in reality each number is a discrete piece of information as important as a discrete piece of information on any other list. Geraldk (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There purposefully is not fixed cut-off. The cut-off is whatever is sensible. The 10 items threshold isn't a "rule", hence not being in the criteria. Here, the cut-off should be when it becomes no longer reasonable to keep the medal table unsplit, and I do not think this list falls into that category. Also I do not want to get into discussing which other lists are/are not suitable, but I will mention that both were promoted to FL before 3b was implemented. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, here's my frustration. I'm a teacher, right, and when I give my kids writing assignments I provide a rubric that tells them exactly how they will be scored. In effect, WIAFL is a rubric. Now, 3b says that the list submitted "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." You use the word sensibly, WIAFL uses reasonably, but in effect what that means is a gut feeling. A gut feeling has no reasonable use as part of an assessment. If a student asks me how long an essay they should write and I tell them, "whatever is sensible", or if I hand my kids an essay and say that their argument "could reasonably have been longer", they would rightfully complain. If I expect a minimum of 5 paragraphs, I ask for it. Otherwise, the assessment tool itself is invalid, because I am scoring them by a standard I never made clear. For the purposes of FLC, different assessors will judge 'reasonable' in different ways, which means there will be no consistency in the process. I can nominate a list (like this one) and have you raise an objection saying that it doesn't seem long enough. Someone else can nominate a list, and if you or the other people who interpret 3b very strictly don't happen to assess that particular article, it can get FL. It's frankly unfair to editors and the articles they create. And, in my opinion, comes perilously close to conflating quantity with quality. Geraldk (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FYI, I was pointing out those other lists partially because you, again rather arbitrarily, suggested 1936 as the cutoff for when medals tables should be separate lists. Geraldk (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to make up an arbitrary value just for you. It is worth noting that recently this 20 item list was delisted under 3b, whereas a television series list of less items (e.g. this 16 item one) are not in danger of delisting. Basically, we don't have a value because we are not able to compare all the lists using one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only sorry you're sinking an FL nomination based on the arbitrary application of an unclear standard. I have no problem with there being no exact number specified if 3b is being applied to lists that are blatantly short like List of counties in Delaware, which was rightfully rejected from FLC. But 21 items with four pieces of data per item? That's a significant list, and if 3b is going to be applied in that gray middle, than it needs to be more specific. Otherwise, your doing this undermines FL as any kind of objective standard. Geraldk (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess it's open to interpretation, but I'm not sure if 3b comes into effect because the main 1900 Summer Olympics article could conceivably be expanded quite a bit (see 2008 Summer Olympics for an example of how big these pages can get). There's also the case of notability. I may be biased because I love the Olympics, but I find the medal counts (which have received a lot of third party coverage) to be more notable than how many Kerrang awards Good Charlotte has been nominated for. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article were in the main article...!. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Before any review from me, I must address the 3b issue. Perhaps I'm biased (I got 1998 Winter Olympics medal table through FLC), but having the full table in the main article really unbalances the end of it. The table itself is not so bad, but the prose before it is longer than that on any of the events. A 10-item list and a few descriptive sentences would be fine, but SRE.K.A.L.'s example is pushing things a bit. Also, I agree with Scorpion that lists like these are not what 3b was created for; one of the goals was to get editors to stop creating forky lists for FL purposes only and to start improving existing lists. Hard to complain that this is an FL grab when the page has existed since August 2004. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think SREKAL's version of the main article with the list merged looks fine, but I am not opposed to keeping this separate either. I always prefer merging for anything, but this one's long enough for me if others agree. I will, however, be merging the smaller ones as previously discussed. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may get some pushback on that. Many of the commenters at WP:OLY are opposing mergers for various reasons. Geraldk (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for compromise - OK, so this discussion seems to be stuck in neutral. I've got a proposal for a compromise, and let's see what everyone thinks. Cheetah and Rambo have concerns about the length of the list. I and some others don't have the same concerns. The core issue to me is that some of these medals tables have qualified for FL and some have not because of length, and there is no firm rule on exactly where 3b applies. That's because, as Rambo has stated, it's impossible to set an across-the-board rule for all lists because 3B applies differently to different types of lists. But there is nothing that prevents the reviewers here from agreeing to a sort of unofficial policy for only the Olympic Medals Tables. Specifically, I suggest the following:

That medals tables with 24 or more entries (the size of the smallest current FL medal table) be considered to meet the 3b standard, assuming a sort of precedent from the current FLs. This will limit the lists of this kind eligible for FL to somewhere between a third and a half of the total.
That I (and hopefully others who are interested in working on those tables) refrain from nominating any Olympic medals tables shorter than that for FL, instead nominating them for GA a la List of counties in Delaware (given that there was significant opposition on WP:Oly to the idea of merging the shorter tables that followed from my nomination of the 1904 list, I'm not going to merge them).

Thoughts? Geraldk (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose cutting them off. As I've said elsewhere, either a list should be able to be featured or it should not exist as an independent list. If the others refuse to let them be merged, then I support them being able to be become featured. There's no reason to have such a cutoff. Also, 1896 Summer Olympics medal table with only 11 members, is the current smallest. I will go to OLY, but there's no reason to duplicate the info solely for the sake of having articles for all of them. I think the Delaware counties got through a loophole; according to WP:WIAGA, lists may not be GAs, and that's not comprable to FL. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. That brilliant idea is shot. Didn't realize that was in the GA criteria. So... look, there needs to be some sort of consensus reached about whether these lists meet 3b. And frankly, at this point, I don't know what the answer is. If they don't meet FL standard, as Rambo and others have argued, but they aren't eligible for any other standard like GA, than they become effectively the only true content on Wikipedia that I know of which have no set standard towards which to improve. Kind of removes a major motivation for dedicated editors to work on them. Geraldk (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do have a standard to improve towards. They can be merged into a parent article, which can then be aimed for GA/FA. I don't want to get into a long drawn out debate with OLY over this, but keeping articles split (e.g. especially 1986) just to have a complete set of unsplit medal tables is not the right course of action. The navboxs could easily be piped to a section in a main article, and consensus at a WikiProject, in this case not to merge, should not dictate. Basically, if a list is short enough to merge, it should be merged. By that I mean, I don't think it should be an all or none merged situation, so somewhere we need to have a cut off. I've already stated my rough opinion on a cut-off, with which some disagree, and that is fine. This takes us full circle, and means we are getting nowhere fast. I'd be keen to hear what the other people who discussed 3b's implementation think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is a review needed here or not? If so, let me know so I can get going on it. If not, I see no reason to keep this FLC open; the discussions should be taken to FLC talk. Personally, I don't think a cut-off date makes sense when many of the Winter Olympics tables are much smaller than some of the earlier Summer Olympics tables. A number would be better, but I'm unsure what it should be. The table I worked on is 24 items, so I'm not the best person to comment on Gerald's proposal. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 is right, we're not talking about this list anymore, we're talking about Olympic medal tables now. I am against that "all or none" talk, as well. If we start encouraging this "all or none" talk, then one can say "if Metallica has its awards listed separately, so should Blink-182", some even can start threatening by saying that they're going to have an anxiety attack if their lists somehow get merged. I believe if we go with all or none, we're going to have those low quality lists again that we're trying to get rid of with the implementation of the new 3b criterion. As for the cutoff, I don't think using an arbitrary number is the best solution. It depends on the amount of content next to the table, as well.--Crzy cheetah 04:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't see the comment above! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you did merge(props to you!) and the main page became a quarter of a screen longer. Oh, it's also worth noting that 1900 Summer Olympics is in a bad condition even without the full table and it's hard to analyze how the merger will change the quality of the main page. If there is something that I didn't notice, please point it to me.--Crzy cheetah 06:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is now a larger discussion. Frankly, its a larger discussion than FLC, something which should get wider attention from the community. I'm fine with this nomination being withdrawn until some resolution is reached. Geraldk (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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