Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)/archive2
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Opposefor 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Tables
editWhile 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Have at it :) Geraldk 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]