Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Chicago Bulls seasons
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 promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [1].
previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)
After the disastrous first nom, I have improved the lead section, hopefully I have addressed every concern. A special thanks to User:Zagalejo who helped me copyedit the lead. —Chris! ct 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from SRX
- Comments
- Now considered one of the best basketball players of all time, Jordan averaged 28.2 points per game as a rookie and immediately turned the Bulls into a perennial playoff contender. - source for Jordan being "the best"?
- Fixed—Chris! ct 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the Chicago Studebakers, - is this suppose to have a red link?
- I created a stub.—Chris! ct 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- # ^ Sachare, 5–7 - you use this book ref, but you don't note it anywhere.
- Also, what is verifying the list itself?
- The sources is below the references. I've moved it up.—Chris! ct 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my comments have been resolved and the list has improved heavily since it was at FLC, it now meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- What info was taken from the "Team Index" and "Playoff index" sources?
- Team Index is removed since it looks irrelevant. Playoff index is kept since it shows what teams played in the finals.—Chris! ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this page serve the same purpose? Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind, I've made use out of it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's weird that I still see it on the page.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you need to purge the page.—Chris! ct 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Team Index is removed since it looks irrelevant. Playoff index is kept since it shows what teams played in the finals.—Chris! ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why color the "finish" in the seasons where the Bulls won the division? I understand coloring the "division", but why the "finish"?
- It indicates a playoff berth.—Chris! ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason why some of those cells are light blue, rather than teal? Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're contradicting with the Key section now.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Light blue indicates division champions while teal indicates a playoff berth. How is that a problem or contradictive? ??—Chris! ct 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, why not just use teal for every playoff berth in the "Finish" column? It may not be apparent to everyone that a division title guarantees a playoff berth. (Which, I assume, is the logic you're working with.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Crzycheetah removed the coloring from some of the cells in the "Finish" column. Honestly, I think that just muddles things even more - people who quickly look at the list might not realize that the team also reached the playoffs in those seasons. Could you please elaborate on your comment, Crzycheetah? Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zagalejo, in some instances, the "finish" column was colored in light blue, which indicates the division title per the key. At the same time, the "division" column is colored in light blue as it's supposed to be. My question was why color two columns in light blue, so I removed the redundant light blue color from the "finish" column. Later, my changes were undone, so now I colored the "finish" column in orange because, in those seasons, the Bulls actually won the championship.--Crzycheetah 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but the whole coloring scheme still seems messed up to me. Look at Boston Red Sox seasons. There's just one color for each row. Couldn't we do something like that? It would be a lot simpler. Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Let's do it.--Crzycheetah 04:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I started editing the table, but upon preview, I had some doubts whether this will work. This list is a lot denser than the Red Sox list, with much smaller letters. Because the letters are so small, they might not show up very well against a teal background. Plus, we have those little symbols to go along with the colors (†,*,^,¤), which will alter the spacing within the table, and make things look messy. So, here are our options: 1) leave the table as is; 2) pick a different color for playoff berth, drop the little symbols, and then use one color per row; 3) come up with a new solution. Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Let's do it.--Crzycheetah 04:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but the whole coloring scheme still seems messed up to me. Look at Boston Red Sox seasons. There's just one color for each row. Couldn't we do something like that? It would be a lot simpler. Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zagalejo, in some instances, the "finish" column was colored in light blue, which indicates the division title per the key. At the same time, the "division" column is colored in light blue as it's supposed to be. My question was why color two columns in light blue, so I removed the redundant light blue color from the "finish" column. Later, my changes were undone, so now I colored the "finish" column in orange because, in those seasons, the Bulls actually won the championship.--Crzycheetah 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Light blue indicates division champions while teal indicates a playoff berth. How is that a problem or contradictive? ??—Chris! ct 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It indicates a playoff berth.—Chris! ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What info was taken from the "Team Index" and "Playoff index" sources?
(→)How about New York Giants seasons as an example?--Crzycheetah 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should just leave the table as is. The colors we have now aren't confusing at all.—Chris! ct 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I don't see a huge difference between that and this, beyond the fact that the Bulls' list colors in the season columns for a championship year. I guess we can just leave the article as it is. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no team seasons for some years? It seems like they were demoted from the league in those years, were they?- I presume they were left out because we don't have articles for every season yet. I added some red links. Zagalejo^^^ 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, red links are better than no links and no text whatsoever.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume they were left out because we don't have articles for every season yet. I added some red links. Zagalejo^^^ 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any references to verify the awards?- Well, this source mentions everything but Krause's two Executive of the Year Awards and Jackson's 1996 Coach of the Year Award. Krause and Jackson's awards are easily verifiable, though. I'll get going on that. (Also, now that I see it, we should mention that Elton Brand was Co-Rookie of the Year in 2000, not the sole winner.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some refs, and a comment about Brand. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be a note in the "1980-81" row explaining how the Bulls moved from the Western conference to the Eastern and how Midwest division became Central.
- Weak support--Crzycheetah 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zagalejo
- Comment I have a question about the image of the United Center. Is there any particular reason that one was chosen over the other available pictures of the arena? Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I choose it simply because it is the current arena in used.—Chris! ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we use this? It actually shows a Bulls game in action. The picture of the entrance is a little dull. Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I choose it simply because it is the current arena in used.—Chris! ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Some of the items in the "Abbreviation" column are not actually abbreviations. How should we fix that? Zagalejo^^^ 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "symbols/abbreviations"—Chris! ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not everything is a symbol, either. We can just get rid of that top row altogether. I don't see why that section needs to be sortable. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "symbols/abbreviations"—Chris! ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from Orlady
This is much improved since the previous FLC review. Congrats! However:
- I would like to see the first paragraph provide an overview summary of the Bulls' seasons. As things currently stand, the lead section is a detailed recounting of the Bulls' history, but there's no summary to start it off. (There was an overview summary at the end of the previous FLC discussion; it had some writing issues, but the substance was good. Can the substance be reclaimed?)
- Hmmm... I'm not sure what part of the old version you're referring to. It's a little tough to provide a pithy overview of a sports team's seasons. Maybe we could mention their all-time record, and how many times they've been in the playoffs...? Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expect to see something like "In the 41 (or is it 42?) full seasons since the team's founding in 1966, the Bulls have had xx winning seasons and xy losing seasons, and advanced to the playoffs on xz occasions. The team has won six NBA championships, xth most of any team in the league." --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll see what I can do. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to include something like that. However, I just mentioned the number of winning seasons, because if I mentioned the number of losing seasons as well, then I'd have to say something about the one season the Bulls finished exactly .500, and that would just makes things too complicated. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expect to see something like "In the 41 (or is it 42?) full seasons since the team's founding in 1966, the Bulls have had xx winning seasons and xy losing seasons, and advanced to the playoffs on xz occasions. The team has won six NBA championships, xth most of any team in the league." --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... I'm not sure what part of the old version you're referring to. It's a little tough to provide a pithy overview of a sports team's seasons. Maybe we could mention their all-time record, and how many times they've been in the playoffs...? Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article lead still has some sportswriter-style idiom that (IMO) needs to be replaced with normal English (wink). In particular:
- "Every previous professional basketball team in Chicago had either folded or relocated, but the Bulls prevailed" -- Can "folded" be replaced with an alternative term? (My best idea is "ceased operation"; I'm sure there's something better.) Also, I'm not sure that "prevailed" is a good way to say "succeeded" or "survived"; the topic isn't a competition or a war, but simply "remaining in business."
- Yeah, I guess "folded" is somewhat informal. I don't think "ceased operations" is too bad. That could work for the time being, but I'll ponder it a little more. I'll replace "prevailed" with "survived". Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've reworded that whole section. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any other sportwriter idioms I should fix? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Bulls advanced to the post-season". -- I know what that means, but it's NBA-speak, not standard English. Could this be revised to "reached the playoffs" or "qualified for the playoffs"?
- I think so. I used "post-season" just to inject some word variety. (I figured that anyone who needs this level of detail is already somewhat familiar with NBA parlance.) But I'll change it. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every previous professional basketball team in Chicago had either folded or relocated, but the Bulls prevailed" -- Can "folded" be replaced with an alternative term? (My best idea is "ceased operation"; I'm sure there's something better.) Also, I'm not sure that "prevailed" is a good way to say "succeeded" or "survived"; the topic isn't a competition or a war, but simply "remaining in business."
--Orlady (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) My previous concerns about the lead have been resolved (sorry -- I tried to post this a couple of days ago, but the server didn't cooperate at that moment), but I have a couple of new minor issues with the article as it has evolved:[reply]
- The dates in the colored legend that precedes the main table (for example, "(1966–1970/1971–present)") are a source of confusion. I don't think the dates are necessary. Could they be deleted?
- They could probably be deleted (and the second part could be renamed as simply "Conference Champions"). I think the idea behind those dates is that the Western Conference was originally called the Western Division, which leads to unwanted complications. But those complications have no bearing on the color scheme of the table, since the Bulls were neither Division champs nor Conference champs until 1975.
- I'd like to hear Chrishomingtang's opinion, though, since he was the one who actually worked on the list. Zagalejo^^^ 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem having the date deleted.—Chris! ct 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difference between the "Season" column and the "Team" column in the table? To the reader, they look identical, except for one footnote. Can the headings be edited to clarify the difference between the two sets of links?
- One column refers to the NBA season. The other column contains links to Chicago Bulls season articles (eg, 1995-96 Chicago Bulls season.) I tried to clarify this. Zagalejo^^^ 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good now. Support. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TonyTheTiger
A review of my FAC1 complaints is as follows:
- What happened to the fact about the third most championships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to the fact about initially playing at Chicago Stadium and moving to the United Center in 1994?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, their first home was the International Amphitheater. There are lots of details about the Bulls that aren't mentioned here. This isn't Chicago Bulls, this is simply Chicago Bulls seasons. I think the lead should mainly focus on their varying levels of success over the years. Can you think of a good place to mention the arenas? Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chicago Bulls should have details of which years the team played in which stadia. It should also have a lot more pre-Jordan information. If you don't want to add any further info here that is O.K. as long as other WP:FL NBA team season lists don't do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mentioned the stadiums in the first paragraph. I've added a little bit more information on the pre-Jordan era, but I think I've hit all the highlights. Can you think of anything important I'm missing? The article is already much longer than Los Angeles Lakers seasons, so I'm hesitant to add much more content. Again, this isn't the primary Bulls article; it's just a list with an introduction. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I was not complaining about Chicago Bulls seasons. I was saying the stadium stuff may not belong here, but that Chicago Bulls needed more stuff. You did not need to add that stuff here for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, OK. Yeah, I think I'll get rid of the line about the stadiums. And I agree, the main Bulls article does need much more information about the pre-Jordan era. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. I was not complaining about Chicago Bulls seasons. I was saying the stadium stuff may not belong here, but that Chicago Bulls needed more stuff. You did not need to add that stuff here for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mentioned the stadiums in the first paragraph. I've added a little bit more information on the pre-Jordan era, but I think I've hit all the highlights. Can you think of anything important I'm missing? The article is already much longer than Los Angeles Lakers seasons, so I'm hesitant to add much more content. Again, this isn't the primary Bulls article; it's just a list with an introduction. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chicago Bulls should have details of which years the team played in which stadia. It should also have a lot more pre-Jordan information. If you don't want to add any further info here that is O.K. as long as other WP:FL NBA team season lists don't do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, their first home was the International Amphitheater. There are lots of details about the Bulls that aren't mentioned here. This isn't Chicago Bulls, this is simply Chicago Bulls seasons. I think the lead should mainly focus on their varying levels of success over the years. Can you think of a good place to mention the arenas? Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FAC1 complaint that "The All-Time record section should have a footnote saying statistics include games through Month DD, YYYY. During the season this may get confusing." still stands.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the top of the "Year by Year" section says that statistics are correct through the 2007-08 season. When the next season begins, we can adjust the article as necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be footnote info, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you put it where you want it to be? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you put it where you want it to be? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be footnote info, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the top of the "Year by Year" section says that statistics are correct through the 2007-08 season. When the next season begins, we can adjust the article as necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The table key should be in the same section as the table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the subsection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's fine. I'm not sure why I added the section division anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the subsection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 9 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.