The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for Featured list status because I am looking for feedback from other editors - what do folks think about the two different main sections? I nominated this List for possible FLC status this past fall (2019). The nomination was closed in January 2020 as 'Not promoted' with 2 Supports and 2 Opposes. The List passed all other objections and was brought "up to code" but the main sticking point for the 2 Opposes is that the List's 2 main sections are in different styles - the first being a sortable Table, the second being a text-List. This general format of the two sections is how I found the List when I first started working on it in 2010 - myself and the other editors subsequently retained the general style of two sections. The major section about cyclists who died during a race was eventually completely converted into a sortable Table. The cyclists who died during training section seems fundamentally different to me, these were almost exclusively people who died as individuals, not racing under a team banner, and with the exception of perhaps two instances these other cyclists were killed in training accidents - the text-list format seemed to fit their situation and so that format wasn't changed. I do have to say right off that I do not want to split the two sections into different articles - the world of cycling does not seem to make that distinction, all cyclists who have died during competitions or during training seem to be generally memorialized together. Thanks in advance for any and all comments - Shearonink ( talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I don't have a problem with the different styles - only if any friends or relatives of the cyclists who died during training said they were not being respected as much would I think it should be changed. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Further comments
Since various different possible titles have been mentioned above, I thought it would be useful to gather them all up in one place. In a list no less!
1:
List of cyclists with a cycling-related death
2: List of people who died as a result of incidents connected with cycle racing
3: List of racing cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents
4: List of cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents
Proposed title:
Let's say the title was changed to List of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents or something similar - that starts to take care of the inclusion criteria issues but not all. I was looking at other cycling FLs for guidance and came across List of Tour de France general classification winners. I was told at some point that FLs had been moving away from stating "This is a list of [the subject title]" or "List of [whatever] is [etc]" so in 2012 I changed the lead sentence from its then-version "List of" form:
to another version which has since morphed into the present statement. If the lead were changed to something along the lines of the following (plus moving the List to the associated/changed title) would that be enough to satisfy concerns regarding the inclusion criteria:
References
On the one hand one can describe such a race as one between teams each consisting of a man on a motorcycle, known as a 'pacemaker' or 'pacer', followed by one on a bicycle, known as the 'stayer'
References
So. Would those changes or something similar satisfy the concerns about the List's inclusion criteria? Shearonink ( talk) 20:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I have no problem with the two styles of lists. I do find odd the missing time period 1929-1993, and then the odd splits of 1994-2000 followed by a partial decade (2010-2018) and then 2020-present, omitting the single year 2019. The Template:Expand list leaves such a pathetically small notation, and placed at the top of the page (prior to the lede and table of contents) makes it so inconspicuous as to be useless to the lists themselves. I would suggest you use more decade-friendly section headings and use Template:Dynamic list at the top of each section (alerting the reader that there may well be missing entries). Maybe try these brackets: 1900-1989, 1990-2009, 2010-2019, 2020-present... or 1900-1990, 1991-2010, 2011-present (changing later to 2011-2020, 2021-present). Normal Op ( talk) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply |
---|
*As I mentioned when this was nominated before, I can't see any compelling reason for the two lists not to be in the same format. To my eyes it looks messy, and means that the data is inconsistent. For example, many of the entries in the second section list a country after the date. I presume this is their nationality rather than the country where they died (as some of them died in different countries), although it's not specified. But why does one listing have the lengthy and detailed "Aberaman, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Wales, United Kingdom" rather than simply a country name? And why do some not have this info at all when it is clearly known/available? Putting the data into actual columns would ensure that is consistent for all entries..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
07:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
A couple of questions:
|
Wow this is some list, good work so far! This source review will likely take some time, so I may do it in chunks. Aza24 ( talk) 07:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [1]. reply
List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for Featured list status because I am looking for feedback from other editors - what do folks think about the two different main sections? I nominated this List for possible FLC status this past fall (2019). The nomination was closed in January 2020 as 'Not promoted' with 2 Supports and 2 Opposes. The List passed all other objections and was brought "up to code" but the main sticking point for the 2 Opposes is that the List's 2 main sections are in different styles - the first being a sortable Table, the second being a text-List. This general format of the two sections is how I found the List when I first started working on it in 2010 - myself and the other editors subsequently retained the general style of two sections. The major section about cyclists who died during a race was eventually completely converted into a sortable Table. The cyclists who died during training section seems fundamentally different to me, these were almost exclusively people who died as individuals, not racing under a team banner, and with the exception of perhaps two instances these other cyclists were killed in training accidents - the text-list format seemed to fit their situation and so that format wasn't changed. I do have to say right off that I do not want to split the two sections into different articles - the world of cycling does not seem to make that distinction, all cyclists who have died during competitions or during training seem to be generally memorialized together. Thanks in advance for any and all comments - Shearonink ( talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I don't have a problem with the different styles - only if any friends or relatives of the cyclists who died during training said they were not being respected as much would I think it should be changed. Chidgk1 ( talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Further comments
Since various different possible titles have been mentioned above, I thought it would be useful to gather them all up in one place. In a list no less!
1:
List of cyclists with a cycling-related death
2: List of people who died as a result of incidents connected with cycle racing
3: List of racing cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents
4: List of cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents
Proposed title:
Let's say the title was changed to List of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents or something similar - that starts to take care of the inclusion criteria issues but not all. I was looking at other cycling FLs for guidance and came across List of Tour de France general classification winners. I was told at some point that FLs had been moving away from stating "This is a list of [the subject title]" or "List of [whatever] is [etc]" so in 2012 I changed the lead sentence from its then-version "List of" form:
to another version which has since morphed into the present statement. If the lead were changed to something along the lines of the following (plus moving the List to the associated/changed title) would that be enough to satisfy concerns regarding the inclusion criteria:
References
On the one hand one can describe such a race as one between teams each consisting of a man on a motorcycle, known as a 'pacemaker' or 'pacer', followed by one on a bicycle, known as the 'stayer'
References
So. Would those changes or something similar satisfy the concerns about the List's inclusion criteria? Shearonink ( talk) 20:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I have no problem with the two styles of lists. I do find odd the missing time period 1929-1993, and then the odd splits of 1994-2000 followed by a partial decade (2010-2018) and then 2020-present, omitting the single year 2019. The Template:Expand list leaves such a pathetically small notation, and placed at the top of the page (prior to the lede and table of contents) makes it so inconspicuous as to be useless to the lists themselves. I would suggest you use more decade-friendly section headings and use Template:Dynamic list at the top of each section (alerting the reader that there may well be missing entries). Maybe try these brackets: 1900-1989, 1990-2009, 2010-2019, 2020-present... or 1900-1990, 1991-2010, 2011-present (changing later to 2011-2020, 2021-present). Normal Op ( talk) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply |
---|
*As I mentioned when this was nominated before, I can't see any compelling reason for the two lists not to be in the same format. To my eyes it looks messy, and means that the data is inconsistent. For example, many of the entries in the second section list a country after the date. I presume this is their nationality rather than the country where they died (as some of them died in different countries), although it's not specified. But why does one listing have the lengthy and detailed "Aberaman, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Wales, United Kingdom" rather than simply a country name? And why do some not have this info at all when it is clearly known/available? Putting the data into actual columns would ensure that is consistent for all entries..... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
07:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
A couple of questions:
|
Wow this is some list, good work so far! This source review will likely take some time, so I may do it in chunks. Aza24 ( talk) 07:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply