Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Landmarks

List of Chicago Landmarks

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --MarcK 02:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is being nominated because it is a good list produced by the WP:CHICOTW. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A very nicely developed list, and quite useful as a reference. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as nominator. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. ~~Why are so many of the dates missing? Explain to me what they are, exactly, and why several fields have "NA"?~~
2. Redirects will take you to the wikipedia page when the names differ. That's probably the worst self-referential sentence I've ever seen. Try not to advertise a weakness of Wikipedia.
3. ~~Why are the thumbnails of a smaller size in the second section?~~
4. ~~Wouldn't it be beneficial to have this list as being sortable?~~ Toodles. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one Chicago designation date missing.--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand the function of the columns. I thought it was all missing information. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– I have deleted the sentence in point #2. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second section is a secondary list of Chicago Landmarks. The first section is for official Landmarks designated by the Mayor and City Council that may or may not also by NRHP or NHL properties. The second section is for landmarks in Chicago that have not been designated by the Mayor or City Council, but rather by the Federal institutions. Thus, the first section has more prominent images. I think there may be a space issue in the second section dependin on your viewing preferences and display settings. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make the list sortable. How do you do this? TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make a table sortable, just use "wikitable sortable" instead of "wikitable". Done TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the images, the second table is in fact of a lesser width than the first, leading me to believe there shouldn't be a problem with normal sized thumbnails. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Done[reply]

Support. I removed the table sort function though. This table is not optimized for sorting so it adds no useful function here (unless someone really wants to know all which were designated in April, or March). Rmhermen 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I left Phoenix2 a message that I needed some advice on the date sorting formatting. There must be an optimal way to use sortability with dating. I guess if I had YYYY-MM-DD format that would be one way. Is there another. If there is agreement that this is not needed then I will drop it. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support, I think it's alright now, definitely more trouble than it's worth. In that case, my objections have been addressed. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry, but I think there are still seizably too much redlinks in this table for it to be featured. The other elements of it are fine, though. Circeus 05:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When WP:CHICOTW first worked on the page there about 75% redlinks. Then we spent another week just on creating articles for the redlinks and now it is about 45%.
  - Most FLs curently have at least 70% blue links. Considering what is left is only going to be filled in very slowly, that it not enough. Circeus 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply You are free to vote how you feel, but when we were at 25% blue links we (WP:CHICOTW) were told to shoot for a majority. We were going to try to go for 60%, but there was a loss in enthusiam, especially from our hardest workers. I understand we have to uphold standards, but producing another 40 or 50 articles is not something I expet to be able to convince people to spend another week on. We will stand on what we have produced and if that is not good enough it will fail. It is, however, a complete and thorough list. Also consider that even the redlinks each have a citation to a link for all the details. Note the hundreds of citations which may lessen the importance of producing blue links.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment You can tell from my user page that I have personally already created about 3 dozen landmarks for this WP:FLC push. Several others were created by other members to get us to over 50% linked. Now, some other members of the project have started adding articles in hopes of improving the usefulness of the page and thus its viability as a WP:FL. So far I count seven new Landmarks since June 25th at WP:WPChi#Newly_Created_Chicago_Related_Pages with the promise of more to come. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative~~ support. Circeus 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About 50 or 60 articles have been stubified in the lasst 3 days. I think we have over 70%, but I don't want to count. I have been creating Template:Chicago Landmark houses and reworking Template:Chicago Landmark districts templates. I intend to create several more including places of worship, skyscrapers and possibly schools, monuments, theatres, etc. I am wondering if you know how to minimize KB usage for color coordinating the table cells by row along with this effort. It might make sense to have each house row be one color, each district another, each place of worship yet another and so on. However, I only know how to add color by cell and the article is already long in the tooth in terms of KB measurement. Cell by cell coloring would take up a lot of space. What do you think? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It now has enough blue links. Some suggestions:
- The table uses "NRHP" and "NHL" without explaining them. Could those be added in parenthesis after the full name in the lead sections.
- Move the key up to the top. Make it horizontal rather than vertical. Choose a different colour than bright green.
- Seriously consider abbreviating your references section. I've made some suggestions on the talk page about a style of references that would be very much more compact. The article takes a very long time to load. The HTML alone is between 350 and 400KB depending on browser. Of that, about 130 to 150KB is the references section. -- Colin°^Talk 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]