Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame/Archive 1

List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame

The list is complete, well formatted and well sourced. I considered switching to charts, and I even experimented, but the results didn't look so good. -- Scorpion 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Far from featured list status, and should be completely redone. At first, I suggest converting the entire list to table form (using name, birth/death, and referenced description over profession and achievements as columns), then you might want to merge List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame (by profession) and List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame (alphabetical) inside this to avoid content forking. This can be done by using the "wikitable sortable" table class, see List of Dartmouth College alumni for an example. I also have quite a few styling concerns, but I would like the above concerns to be fixed first. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having variant lists ordered "by XXXX" is not uncommon and AFAIK not considered content forking. There are valid reasons for wanting to structure the data in different ways. However, IMO, one list of List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame is quite sufficient for Wikipedia. The wikitable sortable facility is near to useless. In the Dartmouth College list, the only column worth sorting on is Year (and that is already the default order, so all you can do is reverse it). Sorting on name, or a more precise date, doesn't give you the conventional order you'd hope for. For this list, a "Profession" column probably wouldn't sort usefully either and certainly wouldn't group – you need humans for some things. Colin°^Talk 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the wikitable sortable facility is not very useful, it would certainly be better than splitting the list to a few others just to sort it by alphabet or profession. Wikipedia:Content forking states that that it's a "creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" which is true for this case as basicly none of the other lists add any new information. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. Your saying this list isn't FL quality because there are similar lists that are sorted differently? You failed my other list because there wasn't an official list and now your going after the fact that there is also a list sorted alphabetically? Judge THIS list, and not other similar lists. I have no intention of nominating them for FL status, so leave them out of this. -- Scorpion 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for also listing the birthyear, some people would call that original research unless I had a non-Wikipedia source for EVERYONE and fail the article. I think the list looks fine just the way it is. -- Scorpion 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm just saying that we don't want the reader to switch between lists just to get them sorted differently, which fails criteria 1a of WP:WIAFL. It is actualy quite simple to find an online biography page on each of the people listed, this for example. Please try to assume good faith on suggestions. Michaelas10 (Talk) 08:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can I assume good faith when your main reason for failing THIS article is because there just so happens to be a similar list that's sorted differently. And, there is such a thing as too many sources. I'm not going to include the birthdate and a non-Wikipedi source for each just because you think the list lacks content. -- Scorpion 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've tried to "fail" this because it had a third of the functionality among the three lists. There is no such thing as too many sources unless there is over one source on each fact. Right now I expect you to cleanup the mess done by the switch to table form, which includes adding complete remarks with corresponding references to each of the bios. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: fails criteria 1f and 2b. Comprehensive, but poorly organised. TOC navigation by year of induction is not very usefull, nor is it appealing. The list could be made sortable by name, year and profession (meaning it could perform the functions of the two separate lists). Tables have better structure than plain lists (you can see most featured lists contain tables). Profession listings are inconsistent, consider changing "comedic actor" to "actor, comedian" and "Hockey player" to "Athlete, Hockey". That helps in indexing. --Qyd 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I tried a table and the results did not look good at all. And, you're saying that I should change the list so that it's sorted alphabetically? -- Scorpion 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my suggestion, yes. --Qyd 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. -- Scorpion 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There, I switched the list so that it is now sorted alphabetically AND got rid of the alphabetical/chronological list, although I think the chronological list looked better. -- Scorpion 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a suggestion at Talk:List of inductees of Canada's Walk of Fame#Proposal:table regarding wikitable sortable. --Qyd 20:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That actually doesn't look that bad. I'll give it a shot. -- Scorpion 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I updated the table. -- Scorpion 21:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have completely changed the article, it is no longer fair to keep this FAC going, so I will start a new one.