Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Eurovision Song Contest winners

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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for FL as I believe it meets the criteria. It's well referenced, well-illustrated (with free images) and is stable. Any comments will be addressed. Thanks. Chwech 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Keep in mind that in any featured list, any prose that does not summarize the data must be complemented by inline citations. Examples:

• "The Contest's winner has been determined using numerous voting techniques throughout its history; centre to this has been the awarding of points to countries by juries or televoters, with the country awarded the most points being declared the winner." cite
• "Eleven Eurovision winners featured at the Congratulations concert in 2005, in which ABBA's "Waterloo" was voted the most popular song of the Contest's first fifty years." cite (note citations are not currently found in Congratulations (Eurovision)

That's probably the maximum that you will have to do ;).◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cites have been added for the sentences above. Thanks for your comment :) Chwech 10:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • No obvious reason to move the ToC
  • Use of flags gets patently ridiculous in the "Margin of victory"section. Terribly distracting.
  • The "staging" section is not really relevant. It should probably be merged into List of host cities of the Eurovision Song Contest.
• Circeus 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All three points have been addressed, thanks for your comments. Chwech 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Support. Could do with some extra delinking in the first table, but featurable as is. Circeus 00:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All 19:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Will it be all right to make the table sortable? I think it would be better if the first table could be sorted. I just wanted to see who got the most points and noticed that the table wasn't sortable.--Crzycheetah 21:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea, but the rowspan in the 1969 row means that the sort button wouldn't work. I'm not sure splitting that row up would be a good idea so I'm going to have to leave it as it is. Thanks for your comment anyway ;) Chwech 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Such rows have been split in other articles, though it's really a case by case issue. Circeus 02:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm reluctant to split—I just feel the table looks more readable the way it is. Splitting it and adding the sort tab caused some of the colums to resize awkwardly. I hope that's okay with you. Incidentally, the highest score for a winner is mentioned in the margin of victory section. Chwech 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comments. I too would like it to be sortable, e.g. by having 1969 against each of the winners and an extra note about the joint victory, but if not, then so be it. Otherwise, it's a fine, informative list, and one I'd be happy to support if you can persuade me that these two points below have no merit in them!
  • Using negative numbers in the margin of victory column looks wrong, to me anyway - the margin of victory is a positive number.
  • Could you combine the "Winners" and "margin of victory" tables? As it is, you end up duplicating the year and the winner, whereas you could add three columns to the main table and make it easier to compare the winning song with the margin of victory, which is awkward at present.

Bencherlite^Talk 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I've fixed the two points mentioned above, but (regarding the second point) I'm not sure the table is as readable now. I could do with a second opinion, so if you have the chance could you take a look? Chwech 13:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. Support. Personally, I think it looks OK, but I wouldn't oppose if your preference, or the general preference, is to have it the way it was. What do other people think? I was concerned that it might not display well on my browser at work (which is an awkward configuration), but it does. Bencherlite^Talk 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll leave it the way you suggested for now, but some more feedback would be useful here I think. Thanks for your comments and support :) Chwech 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)