Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/July 2007

Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)

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, 2 support, 0 oppose. Not enough support to promote. Fail. Juhachi 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Renominating list because main reason for previous failed nomination was lack of interest in voting rather than any specific objections. For previous discussion on this lits's nomination, see the archive. -- jackturner3 14:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Concerns:

• I don't think there's any need to list dates for which their is no associated saint's day.
• I think the list is confusing in its current format, with the information for each entry jumbled together. Ideally, each month should be in a sortable wikitable with separate columns for the saint, their title or historical importance, date of death or 'heavenly birthday', whether it is generally celebrated or specific to a certain country, whether it is generally celebrated or specific to a certain sect of Lutheranism, and space for notes.
• This last would not stand on its own as ground for opposition, but I don't like how the space between images on the right margin varies. It would be aesthetically preferable to have the right margin solid with images or some way to space them more regularly.

Geraldk 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For me personally, even though I put them in, I dislike the images for both of the reasons you bring up. In my opinion, I don't think this list should have images per se, but again, that's just my opinion and not the way things really work. We also had the discussion about the open dates in the previous nomination as well as in the editing process of the calendar itself. Personally, I like the open dates because it give the eye a break from what would otherwise be a mass of text. However, the idea of a table is intriguing. Perhaps it would be possible (preferable?) to, instead of having a calender, having the events tabulated by festivals, lesser festivals, and commemorations in alphabetical order with the date of the observance in a different column. Perhaps that woudl solve the question of the open dates while possibly making the information more readable. I will be interested to hear other thoughts on that subject. -- jackturner3 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment First about the layout: I would definitely like to see the calendar in a table. That would be a better way of presenting the information, since each entry clearly contains information that is best handled column by column. Also consider using colors, for example for the RED and WHITE information. Empty dates make the calendar look partial, as if something is missing (but nothing is missing). Calendar itself is more than 90% complete, with just a few names missing a link to an article. I'd create at least stubs for the missing names. --Drieakko 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. As I said last time around, I think you have done a very good job on this article, and it appears to me to meet the criterea for a FL. That said, I would strongly encourage you to go for a table, as that has been a re-occuring concern. I especially like the idea, mentioned above, of a sortable table. Pastordavid 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Just to confirm the thinking here, the table below is a rough example. I like the color coding idea too, though I'm not sure what you would code by (sect, vestment, type of event). As to the images - I like images in general. It's one of the big plusses wikipedia has over more traditional references. What I'm thinking with the images is that there should be a more continuous line of them, which I guess requires more images.

Date	Event	Saint Titles	Saint Death	Vestments	Sects	Note
Jan 1	Holy Name of Jesus			W	All	(Lesser Festival)
Jan 2	Johann Konrad Wilhelm Löhe	Pastor, Renewer of the Church	1872	W	All	(Commemoration)
Jan 6	Epiphany of our Lord			W	All	(Festival)
Jan 10	Basil the Great	Bishop of Caesarea	379	W	LCMS

• Support - although I would like to express support for a table format as well. If there is some way to place the table in the middle, with (perhaps) alternating images on either side, maybe that would work too. As for color coding, I would code the names by the type of festival, although if the background were a neutral color it might be possible to color code the vestments by color of vestment. Clearly, you'd need something other than white as a background, but a gray background would highlight the colors of the vestments. Anyway, just a thought. John Carter 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• neutral
  • For the record, I oppose tables. They seem unnecessary
  • How about a definition list format? Looks like a good case

January 1

Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus

Blurb with mention of garment color

January 3–5

No feasts

January 6

Epiphany of our Lord

Blurb

• If it is kept as a normal list, I say the format goes "—Type (Garment color); ECLA/LCMS"
• Are there any actual moveable feasts? If not, remove the link from the see also.
• Circeus 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There are moveable feasts. Any Festival connected with Easter (Ash Wednesday, Passion Week, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, the Great Fifty Days of Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, and Holy Trinity) are all mobile. They weren't mentioned in the current list because they were covered in the main text back when the list was an article. If the text were changed to a table, we might be able to work them into the list in a way that isn't possible in the current format. -- jackturner3 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tables

While I can go with the tables, the only thing I can think of is that it might get a little tricky at some points. For example, on Jan 10, the LCMS not only commemorates St. Basil, it also commemorates Sts. Gregory Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. While these are seperate indivdiuals, they are commemorated as a unit rather than different options. Therefore, they should be listed together as a unit. The only problem with that is that I percieve the possibility of a table becoming overcrowded very, very quickly. I'm not sure how I want to resolve this...yet. I'm also not sure if we would want one very large table, a table broken down by months, or a table broken down by categories (i.e., one for festivals, one for lesser festivals, and a third for commemorations). It might be worthwhile to consider all three possibilities althought I wonder at what point it ceases to be a calendar and becomes something else. In any event, those are my thoughts. I know that I'll be going with the table beyond a doubt now, it's just a matter of deciding which one is going to work best. -- jackturner3 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no experience making such tables. However, couldn't the multiple names be added as

separate

lines

within the text of the table? Doing so would make it a bit clearer that they are, as it were, "parallel" on the day in question. John Carter 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I've been playing around a little with the table idea here. If people like it, I'd be happy to do it for the remainder of the table. If the consensus is in the opposite direction, I won't stand in the way. Circeus - my issue right now is readability. I think there's a lot of information that each line is trying to impart, and I think it's just easier for readers to access it in table format. Geraldk 15:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What I've been working with can be found here. Essentially, I thought about the possibility of splitting the tables down into three seperate data sets based on level of event (whether Festival, lesser festival, or commemoration). Let me know what the consensus is. -- jackturner3 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I like yours better, Jack, though there are advantages and disadvantages. I think each individual list is more accessible, but the problem is a read has to scroll through three lists to see if there is any event on any particular date. Geraldk 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise, then? Let's leave the Festivals and Lesser festivals as two tables will all the date set on them and then let's break the commemorations down into seperate tables by month under the subheading of the name of the month. Does that sound acceptable? -- jackturner3 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Have at it :) Geraldk 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Table looks otherwise good, but the purple and pale blue backgrounds with blue links is rather difficult to read. --Drieakko 07:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've given a bigger idea of what my table suggestion would look like (sans photos) here. I'll keep working on it (it's a long process) but if anyone has any suggestions I will incorporate them into the work. Thanks. -- jackturner3 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)

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: 16 days, 3 support, 0 oppose. Fail. --MarcK 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

---

This article has been well researched and has been a GA candidate in the past. At the recommendation of the last GA review, it was decided to seperate the main text of the article into a new article (Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) and leave the actual calendar in list format. At the recommendation of User:Drieakko, it is being nominated as a Featured list while the new article is being submitted for GA review. -- jackturner3 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• References should be better formatted, inline citations would be helpful. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but what would a "better format" for references be? And what would an example of something within the article needing an inline citation?

Some of the statements in the lead could use a citation. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• A couple of comments. First, you've done some great work on these articles, Jack. You may want to, if you have not, check out some of the recent promotions of featured lists, I think there are probably some good ideas as far as layout there. My main comment, as far as content, would be to go with either the ELW or the LBW calendar for the ELCA. As it stands currently, I'm not sure which calendar is the primary source for the ELCA calendar on the page (for example, Thomas is observed on Dec 21 in the LBW calendar, but is not noted as such on the list; but Rasmus Jensen is listed on February 20 even though he was removed for the ELW calendar). My own inclination would be to go with the ELW calendar, as it is the most current calendar of commemorations in the ELCA. As a minor note, it is standard to spell out the word Saint before a person's name; and use the abbreviation before places (thus, Saint John, but the Basilica of St. John; Saint Thomas, but the Island of St Thomas). I think this list is pretty close over all. Pastordavid 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The choice of the LBW or ELW was a hard one. In the end, I went with the LBW as the primary base for nomenclature because it represents the closest thing we have to consensus among Lutherans in North America. In this way, where the language for festivals and commemorations held in common by the ELCA and the LCMS come into conflict, I have determined that the LBW overrules both LSB and ELW. For dates, ELW and LSB rule the day since, as you say, they are more current. Perhaps this material should be stated directly in the open since it is directly related to methodology and I’m open to doing that if it is deemed necessary.

Since Jensen is no longer on either calendar, I have removed him. I have also gone back and made sure everything is correct on the calendar for both the ELCA and the LCMS and have wikified the use of saint on the calendar. I have looked at some of the other lists recently promoted (as well as some of the other calendars), and I’m open to discussion on the subject of format if there is a big issue with it.

jackturner3 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. Support. As far as formatting, you know that I prefer the table-style without the empty dates (a la January here) but my preference for that style is not enough for me to oppose. Well done. Pastordavid 17:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support
  • Is it necessary to have empty dates ?
  • For references, see {{Cite book}} and similar templates. Circeus 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m sold on it because I like the layout better than just having everything crammed on top of each other (I think it makes it easier to read). However, if that is a make-or-break issue for promotion, I’m certainly willing to discuss it. As for references, I’m using Chicago Style. As far as I know, that’s acceptable, which is why I had posed the question to Phoenix2 of what a “better format” for references was.

jackturner3 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Why is the article disambiguated? It should be at Lutheran Calendar of Saints. (same with Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)). Circeus 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. "Calendar of Saints (X Church)" is the standard that is used for the majority of articles about calendars of saints and commemorations. It seems, as someone who works with WP Saints, to make the most sense to leave that one there (see Category:Liturgical calendars for examples). On the other article (unrelated to this FA nomination), I would support moving to Lutheran litrugical calendar. Pastordavid 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't suspected it was part of a larger scheme (which, given some of the odder names, makes sense.) I retract that. Circeus 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested Updates

OK, of the projects requested from various editors

• Change all instances of St. to Saint.

 Done

• Check all entries to ensure conformity with current commemorations in the ELW and LSB

 Done

• “Better format” for references.

Still not sure what this means. The format I have used is standard Chicago style. If I must use a Wikipedia template, I will do so, but I would appreciate knowing if this is an essential for everyone here or not.

• Citation of “some” of the lead statements.

Again, not certain what this is to mean since the specific lead statement which needs a citation was not pointed out. Again, happy to do it, just need to know which one to do it too. I’ve been working on this for so long, I’m kind of getting blinder’s syndrome.

• Decide if empty date format is necessary.

This is one of those things that I suppose we need to have a discussion about. I’m not certain if this is a deal breaker or not, but many of the other calendars are formatted in this manner (and when the list was originally created, this was how they were all done). In any event, I’m willing to discuss it, but I would need those who are interested in a calendar change to discuss it with me.

Those are the only projects that were opened by nominating this list for featured status. I would like to see the necessary consensus built and the list promoted, so for those who are working on this, I would appreciate hearing from you. -- jackturner3 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)