Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Archbishops of Vancouver/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Crisco 1492 (talk | contribs) re |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::*Yeah, but only eleven entries. I don't think this would be [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] in the main article. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
::*Yeah, but only eleven entries. I don't think this would be [[WP:UNDUE|UNDUE]] in the main article. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/20–20–20 club/archive1|this FLC]] I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
::::Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in [[Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/20–20–20 club/archive1|this FLC]] I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —[[User:Bloom6132|Bloom6132]] ([[User talk:Bloom6132|talk]]) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::*I actually would have supported that one as there was no good place to merge it. This one... if consensus is that this is solid enough to stand on its own, look for a fuller review from me. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:55, 20 October 2012
List of Archbishops of Vancouver
List of Archbishops of Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Finally decided to nominate a non-baseball list for once. I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly and meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Question any reason for this to be a stand-alone list and not part of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Vancouver? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The previous embedded list in the Archdiocese article was unsourced and contained only the incumbent's name and tenure in years. Since this list contains more details about every archbishop (e.g. the "Notes" section and the lead), I think this merits to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but only eleven entries. I don't think this would be UNDUE in the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in this FLC I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I actually would have supported that one as there was no good place to merge it. This one... if consensus is that this is solid enough to stand on its own, look for a fuller review from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't the rule of thumb at least 10 entries to qualify for FL? That was an early sticking point in this FLC I nominated. And from that precedent, all that is required is that the entries have substantial information about themselves. The addition of the "Notes" section satisfies that requirement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- The previous embedded list in the Archdiocese article was unsourced and contained only the incumbent's name and tenure in years. Since this list contains more details about every archbishop (e.g. the "Notes" section and the lead), I think this merits to be a standalone list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)