Wiki143:Featured list candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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 promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.
Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders
I have been working on Template:Tl with User:Cbl62. I decided to add a leaders section. This is the first of at least three lists I hope to nominate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you go from a Top 20 list to a Top 25 list to a Top 50 list? You should pick a standard and stick to it. -- Scorpion0422 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Top 20 works for career because one can only have one career. However, a person with a great career can have many great seasons. Thus, we can go down to 25 and still only have elite performances. Similarly there are more great games than seasons so we use 50. The list would lose a lot of its appeal by shortening it because many interesting characters would be eliminated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't randomly deciding who to include on a list and who not to POV? Like I said, you should pick a standard, like Top 20 and stick with that. -- Scorpion0422 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look below at List of tallest buildings in Detroit. One section is the top 33, another the top 10 another top 1 and so on. We are trying to make the lists interesting and including interesting things. I could list the top 200 of each but it would not improve the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that list does have a standard. One list ranks the buildings that stand at least 300 feet, the other one lists the only really tall building under construction and the other just ranks the Top 10. Sounds like standards to me. Saying you are or aren't including something solely because it is or isn't interesting is POV. Maybe somebody else thinks that Top 100 lists are interesting. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you say one lists "really tall building under construction". I will have to go to the dictionary to figure out how many that is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- And what does that have to do with anything? -- Scorpion0422 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that my line? Seriously, since when is there a policy that multiple list articles have to have uniform list lengths?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Including various people because you think it makes a list more interesting is extreme POV, and featured articles should be even handed. -- Scorpion0422 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am including people who are on the list. I am not just adding touchdowns to guys because I like them. This is no different from a building list that lists X# completed, Y# Approved and Z# Under construction. I have X# for Career records, Y# for single-season and Z# for single-game (with a minor adjustment for ties). --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. I am using the same number for each career list and each single-season list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Including various people because you think it makes a list more interesting is extreme POV, and featured articles should be even handed. -- Scorpion0422 04:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that my line? Seriously, since when is there a policy that multiple list articles have to have uniform list lengths?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- And what does that have to do with anything? -- Scorpion0422 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you say one lists "really tall building under construction". I will have to go to the dictionary to figure out how many that is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that list does have a standard. One list ranks the buildings that stand at least 300 feet, the other one lists the only really tall building under construction and the other just ranks the Top 10. Sounds like standards to me. Saying you are or aren't including something solely because it is or isn't interesting is POV. Maybe somebody else thinks that Top 100 lists are interesting. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look below at List of tallest buildings in Detroit. One section is the top 33, another the top 10 another top 1 and so on. We are trying to make the lists interesting and including interesting things. I could list the top 200 of each but it would not improve the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't randomly deciding who to include on a list and who not to POV? Like I said, you should pick a standard, like Top 20 and stick with that. -- Scorpion0422 19:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Top 20 works for career because one can only have one career. However, a person with a great career can have many great seasons. Thus, we can go down to 25 and still only have elite performances. Similarly there are more great games than seasons so we use 50. The list would lose a lot of its appeal by shortening it because many interesting characters would be eliminated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
O.K. I have made each list a Top 25 list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: A couple formatting issues:
- Under each header, repeating the same information as a "lede" (of sorts) is not very helpful.
- The layout bothers me - having basically one long table half the width of the page all the way down. Is it possible to double up? Perhaps:
| Career | Single-season |
|---|---|
| Single game | |
Without doing any formatting it could look roughly like this: Talk:Lists_of_Michigan_Wolverines_football_receiving_leaders#Proposed_reformating. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am doing further testing in the section below the one mentioned above. I will clean it up tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Can the tables be sortable?
- They surely can once I understand your instruction above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Northern Illinois has a redlink (single game receptions). Surely there isn't a college football team with a redlink?
-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oddly, I believe they do. They are part of a non-major conference.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- COMMMENT come look at the new reformatting and please support!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- SUPPORT What is there now I would probably not support. I like the reformatted version though. michfan2123 (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- SUPPORT This is really impressive work. I'm not aware of any other resource that has lists of this type for college football teams. Other team record listings I have seen are typically limited to the actual record holders, and having a list like this really helps to give the overall picture of historical performance. cbl62 (talk) 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. -- Comprehensive, well-sourced, well written. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
- Support — This is a useful, understandable, and well-cited collection of information that doesn't lend itself to article format and works well in a list. That being said, there are several things that should be fixed:
- A FA-class article shouldn't have red wikilinks; these should have stubs or have the wikilinks removed.
- There's a lot of grey in the tables; perhaps using a shaded maize and blue color scheme in the tables would help distinguish sections and make it look better stylistically.
- I've copyedited the article, but I'd recommend taking another look through it to ensure that I didn't change something that drastically alters the article or makes something incorrect.
- When a figure is used with a qualifier, such as 20 receptions, there should be a non-breaking space in between the numeral and the label in order to ensure that the numeral isn't separated from its label when the window is resized.
- These things aren't dealbreakers, but they're things I had to address when I went through the FAC process with 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and fixing them might help you get more support from sticklers for wikigrammar. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just wanted to point out that this isnt FAC, this is FLC, so some red-links are okay so long as most of the list is blue-linked and the people that are red-linked are not notable enough to stand alone away from the list.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just wanted to point out that this isnt FAC, this is FLC, so some red-links are okay so long as most of the list is blue-linked and the people that are red-linked are not notable enough to stand alone away from the list.
- Support Great work, very comprehensive and great encyclopedic content.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- Comment Explaining redlinks: Most top skill position players at Michigan become professional players. I am only able to research whether a player has played in the National Football League, American Football League or Arena Football League. I do not know how to determine if any redliinks have played in the Canadian Football League, United States Football League, NFL Europe, World Football League, XFL or some other professional league. Thus, the items are redlinked to represent the possibility that an article may be possible that would withstand an WP:AFD challenge based on professional play.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.