Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of palms of the Caribbean
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of palms of the Caribbean[edit]
- 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: 18 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am submitting this list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. The list is useful to someone interested in the either palms or Caribbean biogeography. The list is comprehensive. While the list focuses on the insular Caribbean, mention is made of species that are present in the wider Caribbean phytogeographic region, but are not actually reported for the islands. Content is supported by references - where taxonomic differences exist between authorities, they are mentioned. The article is uncontroversial, stable, and I believe it to be well-constructed and easy to navigate. There is a concise and informative lead. There are several images, all of which appear to have appropriate "free" license. Self nom. Guettarda 03:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support List is useful, clearly written, complete and stable. •Jim62sch• 13:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Extremely comprehensive! Nicely done! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is impressive.--Filll 04:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The lead and introductory paragraphs are informative in themselves, an impressive list, well illustrated. .. dave souza, talk 10:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion from Circeus
- Strong oppose
A random fishing reveals that 90% of the blue links are redirects to the genus, which is a blatant violation of criterion 1(a)1: the articles are supposed to exist, not to mention it is misleading by implying the articles do exist, and is no better than having no links at all.There are entire,large sections of redlinks. Circeus 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Crap. Did that about a year ago, without thinking. Something I meant to fix before I nominated it as an FL. Guettarda 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A more extensive look does reveal there are more species articles than it might look, but several genus (including some of the larger ones) still have the problem. I'll list them here for convenience: Acrocomia, Coccothrinax, Copernicia, Roystonea & Sabal. I guess I spotted them immediately because due to their size, I was more or less doomed to select several articles amongst those.
I'll give you good credit for at least Blue-linking all genera, although I think the info is sometimes a bit overdetailed (e.g. Bactris).
You'll want to fix the Euterpe link, though (also, the Euterpe (genus) article looks all off... Maybe I'll bring it to WP:PLANTS' attention). Circeus 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] - There's nothing wrong with red-linking. We've had this same issue at FAC with a few people insisting that it was somehow problematic if there were red-links. I don't by the same logic see why the presence of redirects should prevent something from getting to be a featured list. JoshuaZ 14:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I might have not opposed if the list had not been misleading users into believing all those species have articles. The only case where a redirect from the species to the genus is appropriate is when a) the genus is monotypic or b) all species are appropriately covered in the genus articles (which is a very rare occurence). Otherwise, the redirect should probably be deleted. Circeus 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So is it better to delink the species that lack articles (until such time as I get the articles written) or to delete the redirects? I think delinking would be more in the spirit of featured content. Alternatively, I'd have no problem delisting the candidacy until such time as I fixed the problem. Guettarda 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we accepts all species to be notable, I'd favor nuking the redirects. If you agree, I can even do it myself. Circeus 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuking the redirects is fine, except for Acrocomia. Guettarda 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, all redirects deleted. I strongly encourage people to reexamine the list. Circeus 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There are several other FLs with lots of non-pages, and I think this list does pass on 1a3. -- Scorpion0422 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, all the Coccothrinax links are now blue (45 new stubs); there are still 55 redlinked list items out of ~148 list items. I'm going to work on expanding some of them a little, before tackling the other genera. Guettarda 18:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, all redirects deleted. I strongly encourage people to reexamine the list. Circeus 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuking the redirects is fine, except for Acrocomia. Guettarda 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that we accepts all species to be notable, I'd favor nuking the redirects. If you agree, I can even do it myself. Circeus 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So is it better to delink the species that lack articles (until such time as I get the articles written) or to delete the redirects? I think delinking would be more in the spirit of featured content. Alternatively, I'd have no problem delisting the candidacy until such time as I fixed the problem. Guettarda 03:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I might have not opposed if the list had not been misleading users into believing all those species have articles. The only case where a redirect from the species to the genus is appropriate is when a) the genus is monotypic or b) all species are appropriately covered in the genus articles (which is a very rare occurence). Otherwise, the redirect should probably be deleted. Circeus 00:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A more extensive look does reveal there are more species articles than it might look, but several genus (including some of the larger ones) still have the problem. I'll list them here for convenience: Acrocomia, Coccothrinax, Copernicia, Roystonea & Sabal. I guess I spotted them immediately because due to their size, I was more or less doomed to select several articles amongst those.
- Crap. Did that about a year ago, without thinking. Something I meant to fix before I nominated it as an FL. Guettarda 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]