Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in Florida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Florida (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quality rating of this list-table article for WP:NRHP[edit]

Per discussion at Talk page of WP:NRHP of what should warrant Stub/Start/B/FL class rating for a list-table, I think this article merits "Start" rating within WP:NRHP, because:

  1. It is a "useful" list in the sense required in WP:WIAFL
  2. It is factually accurate as far as it goes. Support for all facts about NHLs within are supported by the corresponding articles, I think.
  3. It is comprehensive, listing all the NHLs in FL.
  4. There should not be controversy about its scope, it is a factual matter what sites are NHLs and which are not.
  5. It displays photos of some of its items
  6. There is an article of at least Stub class for every item on the list.
  7. Reference supporting completeness (first External link) is provided.

I am going ahead and giving the article Start rating now.

Proposed criteria, under discussion at WP:NRHP, for achieving "B" class rating are that a list must:

  1. meet Start criteria
  2. be comprehensive, with no controversy about its completeness
  3. have an article of at least Start class quality for every item that is an NRHP
  4. has support for all statements. In descriptions of items, support is to be found in the corresponding articles for the items, not in separate footnotes. This is to improve readability and to direct reader attention to Wikipedia articles, not to outside sources.
  5. displays a separate photo for a substantial number of its items
  6. reference(s) supporting comprehensiveness must be provided.

The list-article for Florida is close to meeting those criteria. The most difficult criterion to meet would be to bring every one of the Florida NHL articles to "Start" class level, where Start class is defined as for NHL articles, also under discussion at WP:NRHP. Adding NHL summary reference and NRHP text and photo references to each article would be part of that, per the current proposal. Hope this helps. doncram 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

edits to trim table size[edit]

Some of the edits to trim table size (e.g.: breaking archaeological between lines) seems a bit awkward. dm (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The hyphenated "archae-ological" looks better on a wide, 1024x768 screen than it does for 800x600, but supporting narrow windows allows the list to fit on half a wide screen, while other articles are viewed beside the List article. For many, many years, hyphenation has been used in typesetting; however, I've rarely seen it in Wikipedia articles, so it does seem unusual for wiki-displays, but we can't allow Wikipedia to ban hyphenation. In fact, the rudimentary MediaWiki software might someday progress to handling optional hyphenation (by a special hyphenation dictionary) as performed by typesetting software in past decades. Meanwhile, the MediaWiki software is heavily focused on the complex alphabetic twistings needed to support intricate word-structures in other languages: perhaps 70% of all complex, arcane, gyrated changes to the MediaWiki software have no benefit for the English Wikipedia, at all, whatsoever, in any possible form. Hence, I can't imagine them having time, soon, to implement optional hyphenation for the English language. In fact, I am amazed that the developers are intensely learning the myriad details of punctuating, accenting or half-spacing 200 other languages, so it is a miracle that any functional improvements are made to article navigation, search or display. The analogy to the stagnating confusion of the "Tower of Babel" isn't just a poetic comparison any longer; no, Wikipedia is truly struggling, suffocating, and burning enormous resources to support over 200 other languages in excruciating detail of bizarre typographic formats.
Meanwhile, perhaps the hyphenation split should be "archaeo-logical" (rather than "archae-ological"), so that the word "logical" appears as a familiar sight to readers. What do you think? -Wikid77 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)