Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of religious topics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] List of religious topics
Clearly of wider interest than some of the nominees. Michael Hardy 05:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Object, needs pictures, references, and a lead, for starters. --Dmcdevit 06:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- What the criteria says is "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, a list does not have to have a picture to be featured.". However, a lead and some kind of refs required. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, that's true, I was wrong about the criteria. But can you imagine a FAC ever being passed without pictures? It makes the article less detailed (comprehensive) and less interesting to read. --Dmcdevit 19:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- What the criteria says is "Have images where appropriate, with good captions and acceptable copyright status. However, a list does not have to have a picture to be featured.". However, a lead and some kind of refs required. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Object, needs a lead for starters, and while not required, pictures definitely improve a list. Adding images of people or symbols near their position in the list would make the page more interesting and attention holding. Though I'm not sure about references for a list like this... it seems to be inherently incomprehensive, since it seems to be just composed of articles on wikipedia or articles on religion that people want. --Spangineer ∞ 11:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- This talk of "comprehensiveness" is ridiculous. Nothing can ever hope to be comprehensive. Example: A comprehensive list would list every cardinal of the Catholic Church about whom a Wikipedia article exists. A less comprehensive list would link to list of cardinals and list of deceased cardinals and those in turn would link to articles about individual cardinals, while only exceptionally important individual cardinals might appear in the list of religious topics. Choosing among these various alternatives would be a matter of intelligent judgment of those who edit these lists, just as all editing of articles is decided that way. Michael Hardy 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, a comprehensive list would list every cardinal of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia having articles on them is totally irrelevant. I'm not interested in simple navigational aids (that's what a category is); I'm interested in content. A comprehenisve list of deceased cardinals would list every single cardinal that has died. Making a comprehensive list of patron saints is possible, because there is a finite number of them (I think). Using "intelligent judgment" to define which cardinals are "exceptionally important" is difficult and will certainly result in instability. Thus, I'd argue that making a comprehensive list of "important cardinals" is not possible unless some specific definition of "important" is provided (a certain rank, served more than x number of years). In such cases, just make a list of Cardinals of the Catholic Church who served more than 20 years and nominate that. More discussion on the talk page. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- The kind of "instability" you're talking about is the same kind that affects all featured articles that appear on the main page. Probably every featured article that has appeared there has been improved by edits that happened while it was featured on the main page; does that make it "unstable" and therefore unsuitable? "Unstable and therefore unsuitable" is something that should apply to things changing far faster than that--something like Pope Benedict XVI six weeks ago. Haven't you looked at the list of religious topics and its edit history? It's nowhere near as unstable as that. Michael Hardy 20:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, a comprehensive list would list every cardinal of the Catholic Church. Wikipedia having articles on them is totally irrelevant. I'm not interested in simple navigational aids (that's what a category is); I'm interested in content. A comprehenisve list of deceased cardinals would list every single cardinal that has died. Making a comprehensive list of patron saints is possible, because there is a finite number of them (I think). Using "intelligent judgment" to define which cardinals are "exceptionally important" is difficult and will certainly result in instability. Thus, I'd argue that making a comprehensive list of "important cardinals" is not possible unless some specific definition of "important" is provided (a certain rank, served more than x number of years). In such cases, just make a list of Cardinals of the Catholic Church who served more than 20 years and nominate that. More discussion on the talk page. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- This talk of "comprehensiveness" is ridiculous. Nothing can ever hope to be comprehensive. Example: A comprehensive list would list every cardinal of the Catholic Church about whom a Wikipedia article exists. A less comprehensive list would link to list of cardinals and list of deceased cardinals and those in turn would link to articles about individual cardinals, while only exceptionally important individual cardinals might appear in the list of religious topics. Choosing among these various alternatives would be a matter of intelligent judgment of those who edit these lists, just as all editing of articles is decided that way. Michael Hardy 01:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Unlike the maths list, I do not fell that anyone can argue that a list that begins "Many Wikipedia articles on religious topics are not yet listed on this page" is comprehensive. While I agree that this criterion could all too easily be taken to its reductio ad absurdum (and that this is happening on the maths list discussion), this one rather shoots itself in the foot. Then there's the lack of a lead. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Object I think this should have a more clearly-defined purpose. A list of a whole bunch of religion topics with no apparent rhyme or reason is not particularly helpful for the reader. Tuf-Kat 01:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Object This isn't even remotely comprehensive Dsmdgold 22:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Object - the lead is unhelpful, there are no references, and it is not (and has little hope of becoming) comprehensive. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
