Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Agatha Christie bibliography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was kept by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31:07 14 July 2019 (UTC) [1].
Agatha Christie bibliography[edit]
Agatha Christie bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer represents out best work. The addition of new sections since it became an FL are unsourced, as is much of the other new material added. SchroCat (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: Could you please be more specific about the problems you perceive, as I am not seeing them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brad, I'm referring to the added "List of short stories" section, which is woefully under referenced (only one ref for part of the text and absolutely none for the story listings themselves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that clarification. I don't perceive that as a serious deficiency in the list, however. Ultimately, the source for the contents of any readily available book is the book itself. While a citation to a secondary work listing all the stories might be worthwhile to add if it can be found, the citations and links to the books themselves should be sufficient, and as the bottom line, I think the page is more useful and more comprehensive with the additional information than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I agree that it’s a possibly/probably better page with the additional information (which is why I didn’t just revert to a prior version). For a featured article we can’t take the book itself: it has to be cited. Without it, it may pass as a normal article, but it just can’t be featured. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Where is that stated, that a book isn’t an RS for its own table of contents? (As it happens, I once edited a collection of stories by another author, whose contents are widely available but haven’t been indexed elsewhere yet; does that mean that author’s bibliography could never be an FL if the contents of my collection are mentioned?) In any event, if a rule says that a better version of a page cannot be featured but a worse one can, then it is not a sensible rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Focusing on "better" v "worse" is a false dichotomy. The previous version of the page had less information on it, but that information was on a separate page. The project as a whole contained all the same information, so we had two pages with specific purposes. This page contained books and scripts, not short stories. That doesn't make it "worse", it means that the perameters of the page were changed when two 'specialist' pages were combined to one larger page. We now have a section that is inconsistent in the way it deals with the sourcing of the new information. The use of the secondary source is needed to show that there were no previous versions published elsewhere, and (as is often a problem with short story collections) that the actual first edition claimed contained those actual stories, not that a new edition by a secondary publisher has been mistakenly added with changed contents.
- Why not? Where is that stated, that a book isn’t an RS for its own table of contents? (As it happens, I once edited a collection of stories by another author, whose contents are widely available but haven’t been indexed elsewhere yet; does that mean that author’s bibliography could never be an FL if the contents of my collection are mentioned?) In any event, if a rule says that a better version of a page cannot be featured but a worse one can, then it is not a sensible rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I agree that it’s a possibly/probably better page with the additional information (which is why I didn’t just revert to a prior version). For a featured article we can’t take the book itself: it has to be cited. Without it, it may pass as a normal article, but it just can’t be featured. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that clarification. I don't perceive that as a serious deficiency in the list, however. Ultimately, the source for the contents of any readily available book is the book itself. While a citation to a secondary work listing all the stories might be worthwhile to add if it can be found, the citations and links to the books themselves should be sufficient, and as the bottom line, I think the page is more useful and more comprehensive with the additional information than without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brad, I'm referring to the added "List of short stories" section, which is woefully under referenced (only one ref for part of the text and absolutely none for the story listings themselves. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the sourcing, using an addition to make the claim it's a "first edition", etc, fails as No original research and Verifiability. The book is a primary not secondary source, and we should be using those instead. That's for the information in the tables concerned, and the block of unsupported text obviously needs to have some supporting info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns as a theoretical matter, and appreciate the level of thought you've devoted to these issues. But in the context of this specific list I think the sourcing is reasonable, and I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information, so my !vote is to retain the page as an FL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid: "I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information" is not the right standard to have for what is supposed to be our best work (in my opinion), particularly when it makes the level of sourcing for the rest of the article inconsistent. Thanks for your comments either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: Actually, hang on, as I may have found a published bibliography we can use to add the sourcing you are looking for. I’m in transit this weekend but should be able to work on it tomorrow night or Monday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great news. FLRC is a relatively slow process (for just this very reason), so the co-ords will, I'm sure, hold off for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It took me far longer than I'd anticipated for the book I need to arrive, but it is now here, so I expect to get to this in the next day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great news. FLRC is a relatively slow process (for just this very reason), so the co-ords will, I'm sure, hold off for a while. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: Actually, hang on, as I may have found a published bibliography we can use to add the sourcing you are looking for. I’m in transit this weekend but should be able to work on it tomorrow night or Monday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid: "I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information" is not the right standard to have for what is supposed to be our best work (in my opinion), particularly when it makes the level of sourcing for the rest of the article inconsistent. Thanks for your comments either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns as a theoretical matter, and appreciate the level of thought you've devoted to these issues. But in the context of this specific list I think the sourcing is reasonable, and I don't see much risk of imparting inaccurate information, so my !vote is to retain the page as an FL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the sourcing, using an addition to make the claim it's a "first edition", etc, fails as No original research and Verifiability. The book is a primary not secondary source, and we should be using those instead. That's for the information in the tables concerned, and the block of unsupported text obviously needs to have some supporting info. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat any update on your feelings here, now we're around two and a half weeks down the road? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi RM, I'm happy to leave this open a little while longer as Brad has the info needed. I wouldn't want to see this delisted then have to go back through FLC a week or so later once the info is added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okeydokes. We'll leave it another week or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat I think it's been another month now, what do we reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're going to have to pull the plug, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to add ping to The Rambling Man - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad anything doing here? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies ... I've been dealing with some other projects and this fell off my radar. I will take care of it this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad no worries. Let me know how you get on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man and SchroCat: I've started in on adding the citations, will finish up over the next couple of days. It turns out that on checking, there are some adjustments to be made to the listings (mostly reflecting differences between the U.K. and U.S. versions of the collections)—which, I will admit, completely validates the point that the two of you were making all along. I'll take care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad all good Brad, just ping me as and when. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, cheers Brad. - SchroCat (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man and SchroCat: I've started in on adding the citations, will finish up over the next couple of days. It turns out that on checking, there are some adjustments to be made to the listings (mostly reflecting differences between the U.K. and U.S. versions of the collections)—which, I will admit, completely validates the point that the two of you were making all along. I'll take care of it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad no worries. Let me know how you get on. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies ... I've been dealing with some other projects and this fell off my radar. I will take care of it this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad anything doing here? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat I think it's been another month now, what do we reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okeydokes. We'll leave it another week or so. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad any word on progress? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's going to take a bit longer than I'd anticipated to verify and source some of the variations between the U.K. and U.S. editions, and I'm going to be mostly offline for a few days for a holiday trip. I absolutely intend to finish this, but if you want to de-star the article at this point, or alternatively remove the section at issue until I can finish with it, I won't say not to. I'll be able to resume work on Tuesday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, there's no deadline and as long as I'm still seeing some commitment to address the issues, the nomination can remain open. Have a good break. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad any updates? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be finishing up this week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man and SchroCat: I've now provided cites for the works in the "UK collections" section (including the "US" column in that section). The same cites would apply in the "US Collections" section so I haven't repeated them all, but if you think it would be better to go ahead and repeat them I can do so. I'll give it a further read for additions and clean-up next week, but in the meantime, if there's anything else you think needs citing please let me know. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be finishing up this week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad any updates? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, there's no deadline and as long as I'm still seeing some commitment to address the issues, the nomination can remain open. Have a good break. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brad. I think it' pretty much there. TRM? - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally the "Collections" tables would have a row scope parameter included (like the other tables) for the purposes of WP:ACCESS, should be quite easy. Then I'd recommend this list is a surefire keeper. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'm away this weekend but will take care of it next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: Actually, I'm struggling a bit with that piece of formatting syntax, which I haven't used before ... can you point me to the best help page so I can familiarize myself with it? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Newyorkbrad, not to worry, it's intricate stuff, quite unfriendly. I've made a start here. The
plainrowheadersin the wikitable class definition stops the main element of each row (defined by the "scope" tag) from being bold. In each row, start with a "!" rather than a "|" and keep the definition that single element on one line of the markup, simply addingscope="row". Bingo. Do that for each of the entries and you have a marked up table which screen readers can access too. Other details are available at MOS:ACCESS, I think. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Newyorkbrad, not to worry, it's intricate stuff, quite unfriendly. I've made a start here. The
- @The Rambling Man: Actually, I'm struggling a bit with that piece of formatting syntax, which I haven't used before ... can you point me to the best help page so I can familiarize myself with it? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'm away this weekend but will take care of it next week. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Newyorkbrad, The Rambling Man, I've done these - as TRM says, they're a fiddly pain in the neck, so I've finished them off. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both for the help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we're ready to close this as keep, unless anyone has any objections? The Rambling Man? --PresN 10:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy now it's all cited. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing more from me. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.