Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Atlanta Thrashers players

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 20:00, 8 February 2008.

List of Atlanta Thrashers players

Basing the format off my previous FL, List of San Jose Sharks players, which is further based off other ice hockey team players lists that made FL status. As always, comments, suggestions, and of course, support is welcome. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice a few players are listed as playing for the team in just one year (Kip Brennan, 2004, for example). I believe the standard format for these pages is to list the full season (2003-2004 for Brennan) even if the player only played in games during one calendar year. My assumption for the reasoning behind this would be the difficulty in determining, say, whether a player who played two games for Montreal in 1932-33 played the games in 1932 or 1933. Of course, that type of situation does not apply for a team as young as the Thrashers, but for the sake of consistency, I believe the issue should be addressed. Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Further Comment: On second check, I now notice that this leads to inconsistency even just within this list: Rick Tabaracci is listed as playing one game with the team in 1999-2000. Unless it was a very late game on New Year's Eve, it couldn't have been in both years. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support: The only issue I had with the list has been addressed. Good work! Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thanks for pointing that out, and the problem should all be fixed up. A user, GoThrashers11, who I want to call a Thrashers fan, made some good faith edits to the list while not aware of what had been done. I left a notice on the user's talk page explaining the situation, so it should be good. Also allowed me the chance to conform the list to the recent standards set out at WP:HOCKEY. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the key section is misplaced. This is a list of players, so the main list should be the first section readers see. The Key section should then follow the main list. --Crzy cheetah 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if I understand what you're saying that the list of all the players should go first, then the key goes at the bottom of the article? If so, I would have to disagree with that idea. Looking at the other hockey team FL's, all of them, with the execption of the Colorado Avalanche article, follow the same convention of the key first, then the list. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline that states one way or the other. Besides the Colorado list, New Jersey list, too, had the key section listed last, here is the last version right before getting the FL star. As you can see, the first section was the list of goalies, then later on someone added the Key section first. I believe the Key section right now is too large with a lot of whitespace to be the first section. If you could make this section smaller, so that the list of players could be seen right away without scrolling, that would be great. I hope you agree that people click on this article to see the list of players and not the explanation of some hockey abbreviations.--Crzy cheetah 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyI completely agree with what your saying, but feel that for viewers who have no idea about hockey, its beneficial to have the key explaining whats what beforehand. I'm not so up on how to work with tables, so if you give me a little time I'll try and see what can be done, if anything, so switch it up while still leaving the key at the start of the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I shortened the tables a little to get rid of the whitespace in that section. Now, it looks a lot better to me. Does it work for you?--Crzy cheetah 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've moved a number of keys to the top for that very reason. Circeus (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that working. Certainly clears up a lot of space. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ support The only thing that I see is that the lead is shorter than the recently passed Buffalo list. Plus, the references are missing access dates. When you improve these two sections, I'll fully support.--Crzy cheetah 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added everything you said, hope it works. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Condtions are met. Nice list!--Crzy cheetah 03:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems fairly straightforward and in the same spirit as other similar lists. I've added ext. links to the references. Circeus (talk) 04:53, 8 February 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.