Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive1

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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 20:13, 1 November 2008 [1].

List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with Princeton University[edit]

Well, as I'm writing lists on Nobel Prizes, I might as well write one on the school I currently attend. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources look good. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Eighteen laureates were members of the Princeton faculty, 13 laureates received their Ph.D. at Princeton, and three laureates, Eugene O'Neill, Gary Becker, and Michael Spence, received their undergraduate degrees at Princeton." Per MOS, comparative quantities should all be spelled out or all written in digits. Since you start the sentence with a number, I recommend changing all the digits to numbers (13-->thirteen). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar question to that on the various lists of elements below: do we need a separate list for Princeton or other universities? For example, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Brigham Young University is going to look a bit silly at present. Wouldn't it be better to consolidate all of the information at the more generic List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, or even List of Nobel laureates?

In addition, how is "affiliated with" judged? Attended at any time as a student or member of faculty? Attended at some point during the time when the relevant work was done? Do all of these related lists use similar criteria? And shouldn't they be more quite explicit about the criteria they are using? -- Testing times (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to make Nobel laureates lists for universities with less than ten laureates. It would be pointless as 1) they could not pass FLC 2) they would be more appropriately merged into a parent list or article. And no, consolidating all of this information at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is what we don't want to do, as that list 1) has a god-awful looking table that needs a complete revamp 2) can exceed 100k easily when it's cleaned up; therefore, to have a simplified format without overwhelming detail, sub-lists are appropriate 3) these universities publish lists of their laureates, and this satifies WP:V. As for the affiliation comment, see point three. It's a WP:V issue. It ranges from the University of Chicago, which considers any laureate that walked on the campus to be an affiliated laureate to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which only considers members of the faculty that did their research for their Nobel Prize while at the university. Whatever the university considers "affiliated" is what we're going to use, as anything else 1) would be a WP:V problem 2) would be a WP:OR problem as we would be creating our own system of what constitutes affiliation. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you might want to make a note on each individual article whom that university considers an "affiliate". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to this one. I'll add a note to the others in a bit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good, can't see any flaws.—Chris! _ct 23:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.